University of Groningen Epistemological beliefs and perceptions of education in Africa Sitoe, Arlindo Alberto IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2006 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Sitoe, A. A. (2006). Epistemological beliefs and perceptions of education in Africa: an exploratory study with high school students in Mozambique s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 21-11-2017
Epistemological Beliefs and Perceptions of Education in Africa An exploratory study with high school students in Mozambique Arlindo Alberto Sitoe
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN Epistemological Beliefs and Perceptions of Education in Africa An exploratory study with high school students in Mozambique Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 14 december 2006 om 13.15 uur door Arlindo Alberto Sitoe geboren op 19 september 1955 Maputo (Mozambique)
Promotores: Copromotor: Prof. dr. M. van der Kamp Prof. dr. A.E.M.G. Minnaert Dr. G. J. Tillekens Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. J.J.H. Dekker Prof. dr. J.P.L.M. van Oudenhoven Prof. dr. J.D.H.M. Vermunt
Foreword When I was serving my fourth year as a secondary school teacher, in 1979, I got a pleasant surprise: an invitation to become a Monitor at the Department of Educational Sciences of the Eduardo Mondlane University, where I was attending the last year of my Bachelor s degree programme. Breaking off with my thrilling teaching experience at school was rather cheerless. However, joining the Department was a persuasive window of opportunity for my involvement in educational research, which was something I had found fascinating in the course of my scanty research experience as an undergraduate student. However, my enthusiasm did not last long. Shortly after graduating I was deployed to the Central Administration of the university, for the sake of staffing the Academic Directorate that had just been established. To make things even worse for me, some years later the Faculty of Education was closed down. Clear prospects for fulfilling my research ambitions on teaching and learning issues only came into sight after a long and quite tedious period of rusting under administrative duties and routines. Definitely, my PhD research ended up being a long-lasting PhDoing exercise, as it had to be undertaken on a very part-time basis, alongside with those rather mismatched administrative responsibilities. I am, therefore, indebted to many people that, knowing or unknowingly, in one way or another, stimulated and helped me to endure and live up to my (and their) expectation: to see my PhD research come to a fruition. I was introduced to The Netherlands when I was still a child, through a drawing labelling condensed milk cans that were very popular in my home country, at that time. The Portuguese trade mark of that milk was Bebé holandês (Dutch baby). The drawing could not be much telling: it portrayed a very well nourished baby, against a background scenario of very green pastures. To make that scenario undoubtedly Dutch, a couple of big cows and a windmill were also included! Of course, at that time it was not even in my dreams that, many years later, I would be fortunate to have Holland as my second home country and to be hosted by a Dutch university for my academic nourishment. Thus, I ought to express my gratitude to the Dutch tax payers and to the Dutch government for making my studies in The Netherlands possible, through Nuffic (MHO programme) financial support. Likewise, I acknowledge
Foreword the partial funding of the study, in the latest years, by the WB Capacity Building Project (HEP1) of the UEM, and appreciate concern of the UEM authorities regarding the progress of my research. Meanwhile, I certainly would never have been able to accomplish the work of this thesis without the guidance, help, and lots of patience of my supervision team, to whom I earnestly convey my special word of thanks and respect. Professor Max van der Kamp, thanks to your wisdom, serenity, consistent trust and support, I could overcome those difficult moments that, for some occasions, made my enthusiasm tumble down. Utmost, your experience, reputation and charisma greatly contributed to my development as an educationalist; Professor Alexander Minnaert, you will never know how lucky I was when you took me onboard, right at the time I was wandering around in that intergalactic journey in search of the strewn epistemological beliefs of my target-group! I have benefited tremendously from your wealth of knowledge and skills and from your sharp-mindedness; At a certain stage of my data treatment I found myself in a dither with the subtleties of factor analysis. I called Help! Help, I need some help!. Kindly, Dr Meindert Slagter introduced me to you, Dr Ger Tillekens. Skilfully and diligently, you coached me through the long and winding road of statistics. I deeply thank you for your unfailing support, patience and encouragement. While prospecting for my research topic, I was fortunate to re-visit the Institute of Education University of London, the School of Education of the University of the Witwatersrand, and the University of the North. I thank Dr Richard Cowan, Prof. M. Cross, and Prof. J. Zeelen and Mr K. Masha, respectively, for the thought-provoking talks I had with them. There is no research without a corpus! Therefore, I ought to pay tribute to all students that volunteered to participate in the study. My gratitude goes also to their class tutors (Directores de Turma) for helping me administering the questionnaires. I wish also to acknowledge the empathy of the City Education Authority in Maputo for allowing me access to some schools for my data collection, namely Josina Machel, Lhanguene, and Laulane. I deeply appreciate the openness and collaboration of the respective directors and deputy-directors, namely Dinis Mungói and Laura Titoce; Pedro Baptista, Filipe and Simela, respectively. I equally thank Daniel Mapera and Joaquina Namburete, ii
director and deputy director of the Escola Emília Daússe, in Inhambane, for hosting me as a researcher in their school, and to Mário Jersen and Joaquina Pascoal, dean and deputy-dean of the UEM Hospitality and Tourism School, for all arrangements towards my stay and data collection in Inhambane. My sincere thanks to Adelino Mathe and to Celeste Sitoe (Maninha), for mobilising part of their students at the Escola da União Geral das Cooperativas to participate in the piloting of my questionnaires. The research reported in this thesis started when I was the local supervisor of STADEP (Staff Development Project) at the UEM. My expectations, anxieties, achievements and hitches were always kindheartedly shared by my colleagues Frans Haanstra, Henk Frencken, Ernesto Mandlate, Wim Kouwenhoven, José Uqueio and Graciete Macuácua. Thank you, folks! A special word of thanks goes to Frans Haanstra. Despite his return to The Netherlands, when STADEP came to its end, Frans kept being at my easy reach during my short visits to Groningen, once he was on his study leave, right at the Department of Adult Education of the RuG. Thus, inescapably, he kept coping with my requests and queries. Still at STADEP, my loud Muito Obrigado goes to Paulino, Telma and Sandra, our diligent driver and administrative assistants, respectively. At the Faculty of Education and at the UEM, in general, I ought to acknowledge and express gratitude to those that, before and during my training, kindly dragged, nudged, hugged, supported, and helped me in several ways. Because the list is rather long, I certainly risk leaving some of them out. Nevertheless, sure that those missed out will keep on being indulgent, I mention the following: Prof. Mouzinho Mário (Hei, Mariô, thanks a lot for your incisive green pen on one of my drafts!); Profs. Balegamire, Mutimucuio and Buendia-Gomez; colleagues Jorge Fringe, Quitéria, Débora, Adalberto and Josje; Professors Manuel Araújo, Armando Jorge Lopes, Armindo Ngunga, Carlos Serra; Profs. Orlando Quilambo, Venâncio Massingue, Maria Inês Nogueira da Costa, Carmo Vaz, Boaventura Cuamba, Teresa Cruz e Silva, Bento Sitoe, Fátima Mendonça, José Negrão, João Paulo Coelho, Mateus Katupha, Bhangy Cassy, and Armindo Tiago. Particularly at the Central Administration of the UEM, I am thankful to many colleagues and friends. I need to explicitly mention some: Conceição Dias, Carvalho Madivate, Telma Faria, Aníbal Victorino, Fernanda Duran, Felisberto Langa, Carlito iii
Foreword Companhia, Camilo Manusse, Vasco Manjate, Carlos Caixote, Verónica José, Hilária Matavele, David Langa, Lúcia Comé, Jacinto Honwana, Elsa Matola, Sara Fumo, Helena Timba and Sr Pacífico. Prof. Dr. Orlando Quilambo, the 1 st Mozambican to obtain a PhD degree from the RuG, always followed with particular interest the progress of this study, due to his genuine commitment with academic matters. Currently, he is the Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs at the UEM, a position that has sharpened his awareness and concern with teaching and learning at the UEM. Therefore, I acknowledge his continuous attention, particularly the fact that he has accepted to be part of the panel of examiners of this thesis. There is a Zulu proverb that has become a flag of the African sense of humaneness (Ubuntu). It says: Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu ( a human being is a human being through other human beings ). The Andra family, lead by Max, and the Bureau Buitenland family, under the leadership of Madeleine Gardeur-Veltman, both made me experience the trueness of that African proverb. My heartfelt acknowledgement to all members of those esteemed families! Jacques Zeelen, and Meindert Slagter and families; Lambert Mulder, Ben Boog, Louis Polstra, Koos Toren, Hinke Beukema, Theo van Dellen, Jo Scheeren, Laurenz Veendrick, Esther de Boer and, obviously, Maaike Smulders, Elke Plovie and Albert Renkema, all made me never feel foreign, lonely or helpless at Andra. As for the Bureau Buitenland (RuG s Office for International Cooperation), my gratitude and admiration for Hans Schoenmakers and his wife Dineke will remain to be expressed, as there are no words to thank them properly, not only for providing me extra facilities for my comfort at the Guesthouse (e.g. radio-cassette player, Mozambican and classic music cassettes, lamps, and a very cozy chair!), but also, and utmost, for cuddling and comforting me when, in two occasions in two consecutive years, while in Groningen, I got shattered by news about the passing away of my sister and my mum, respectively. Definitely, I was not an easy-to-handle international student. Thus, I ought to acknowledge the inestimable patience and care of Gonny Lakerveld and Erik Haarbrink for handling so carefully all arrangements regarding my trips, accommodation and welfare in Groningen, including appointments with doctors/dentist, and the prompt settling of those abrupt trips back to Mozambique. I should add a word of iv
congratulations and special thanks to Erik for his successful great effort towards the provision of internet facilities and updated computers at the Uurwerkersgang Guesthouse apartments, where I and other international students used to stay. I owe a special word of acknowledgement to Pieter Boele van Hensbroek, once a member of the Bureu Buitenland family and now a staff member of the Centre for Development Studies, for his genuine friendship and for his complicity in incursions into African philosophical issues. I am indebted to Pieter for reviewing my 2 nd Chapter and providing me insights to ease my wild ideas about African philosophy. My human environment in Groningen was also made of other international students that were so supportive and caring. I particularly recall Makgwana Rampedi, Sam Raditlhalo, Mokgadi, Dennis, and Mamphango (from South Africa); Elke Plovie (from Belgium); Émilie and Lalbila Yoda, (from Burkina Faso); Margaret Angucia (from Uganda), and Laurens Kaluge (from Indonesia). I owe the proof-reading and the layout of this thesis to Ehsan Hamadani who, even being introduced to me just by e-mail, patiently revised my text and re-shaped my unwieldy Tables. Equally, I thank my friend Eurico Romão for giving me a hand in the tricky translation of the summary of the thesis into Portuguese. I remain profoundly indebted to my paranimfs and friends, Maaike and Elke, for standing in for me and for handling so efficiently all arrangements concerning the organisation of the defence of this thesis. Getting involved in and surviving such a long-lasting study has required lots of understanding, sacrifice, and moral support from my family and relatives. I feel rather guilty that Lina and Beto, my beloved children, grew-up missing me, either because I was away, in Holland, or because, even when in Maputo, I would not spend enough time with them as they and I would like, given that I was quite often busy with my study. Knowing it will not repair those lost years, I dedicate this book to them. Maputo, September, 2006 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Table of contents List of Tables List of Figures List of Appendices Glossary i vii xiv xv xvi xvii Introduction Chapter 1 FRAMING THE STUDY Introduction 5 1.1 Aim 5 1.2 Delimitation and research questions of the study 8 1.3 The Conceptual Framework of the study 10 1.3.1 On the main constructs of the study 11 1.3.2 On the subsidiary constructs 12 1.3.3 On culture and cultural context 13 1.4 Research Approach 15 1.5 Rationale for the study 17 Chapter 2 CONCEPTUAL AND CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND Introduction 21 2.1 Overview of the main constructs of the study 22 2.1.1 Epistemological Beliefs 22 2.1.2 Perceptions of Education 23 2.2 Revisiting the notion of Epistemology 24 2.3 On African Epistemology 26 2.3.1 Current trends in African philosophy 28 2.3.2 An outline towards an African Epistemology 34 2.4 The context of the study 37 2.4.1 Mozambique s demographic and socio-economic profile 37
2.4.2 The Mozambican educational system and its challenges 40 2.4.2.1 The colonial education at a glance 40 2.4.2.2 The National System of Education 41 2.4.2.3 Major education issues and challenges in Mozambique 43 2.5 Summary 46 Chapter 3 PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES Introduction 49 3.1 Background 50 3.2 Personal Epistemology research: An overview 51 3.3 The developmental Paradigm 52 3.3.1 Cognitive development as a path theory to epistemology development: A summary of Piaget s theory 52 3.3.1.1 Implications of Piaget s theory for education and for personal epistemology 54 3.3.2 The advent of the epistemological development paradigm: Perry s Theory 55 3.3.2.1 Limitations and criticism of Perry s model 58 3.3.2.2 Implications of Perry s model for Teaching and Learning 59 3.3.3 Subsequent models within the developmental paradigm 60 3.3.3.1 The Epistemological Reflection Model 61 3.3.3.2 The Argumentative Reasoning Model 63 3.3.3.3 The Reflective Judgement Model 64 3.3.3.4 Summary of the developmental paradigm to personal epistemology and its educational implications 65 3.4 The Epistemological Beliefs System Paradigm 66 3.4.1 The inception of a multidimensional perspective 66 of personal epistemology 3.4.2 Features of the Epistemological Beliefs System Paradigm 69 3.4.3 Issues, strengths, and implications of the Beliefs System Paradigm 69 3.4.3.1 Issues 70 3.4.3.2 Strengths 74 viii
3.4.4 Summary of the epistemological beliefs system paradigm and an overview of its educational implications 77 3.5 The emerging paradigms 79 3.5.1 The epistemic metacognition paradigm 79 3.5.2 The epistemological resources paradigm 80 3.6 Summary 81 Chapter 4 CONCEPTUALISING THE CONSTRUCT OF PERCEPTIONS OF EDUCATION Introduction 85 4.1 Background 85 4.1.1 The main taxonomies of conceptions of learning in Western-Europe 86 4.1.2 Conceptions of learning in Asia and in Africa 88 4.2 From conceptions of learning to perceptions of education 92 4.3 Summary 95 Chapter 5 EXPLORING EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS AMONSGT MOZAMBICAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Introduction 97 Part I:Presenting two studies on epistemological beliefs 5.1 Study A 99 5.1.1 Introductory Note 99 5.1.2 Background to the social environment of the two schools involved in the study 99 5.1.3 Method 100 5.1.3.1 Participants 100 5.1.3.2 Instruments 102 5.1.3.3 Procedures 107 5.1.4 Data Processing and Analyses 108 ix
5.1.5 Summing up relevant outcomes from Study A 124 5.1.6 Conclusions on Study A 125 5.1.7 Closing remarks on Study A 126 5.2 Study B 127 5.2.1 Introductory Note 127 5.2.2 Method 127 5.2.2.1 Subjects and their environment 127 5.2.2.2 Instrument and its administration 129 5.2.2.3 Data Processing and Analyses 129 5.2.3 Summary of relevant outcomes from Study B 144 5.2.4 Fundamental conclusions on Study B 145 Part II: Synthesis and comparative analysis of the studies A and B, on epistemological beliefs 5.3 Examining the factor-solutions 147 5.3.1 Introduction 147 5.3.2 Issues 148 5.3.3 Examination procedures 149 5.3.3.1 Rotated factor analysis with a dummy variable 149 5.3.3.2 Procrustean Target Analysis on weighted samples 152 5.3.4 Conclusion 155 Chapter 6 EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS OF EDUCATION AMONGST MOZAMBICAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Introduction 157 6.1 Purpose and approach 157 6.2 Study C An interpretive study 158 6.2.1 Method 158 6.2.1.1 Participants 159 6.2.1.2 The interview 159 6.2.1.3 Procedures 160 6.2.2 Data processing and analysis 162 6.2.3 Results 163 6.2.4 Discussion and conclusion 171 6.2.4.1 Discussion 171 6.2.4.2 Conclusion 174 x
6.3 Study D A questionnaire study 175 6.3.1 Method 175 6.3.1.1 Participants 175 6.3.1.2 Instruments and procedures 176 6.3.2 Analyses and results 177 6.3.3 Summary 183 Chapter 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION Introduction 185 7.1 Findings regarding to research question 1 185 7.1.1 About the epistemological beliefs patterns 185 7.1.1.1 Beliefs complexity 187 7.1.1.2 Beliefs specificity 189 7.1.2 About the patterns of perceptions of education 194 7.1.3 About the interplay between epistemological beliefs and perceptions of education 197 7.2 Findings pertaining to research question 2 198 7.3 Findings with regard to research question 3 201 7.4 Findings regarding research question 4 203 7.5 Summary of the discussion 208 Chapter 8 CONCLUSION AND AFTERTHOUGHTS Introduction 211 8.1 Conclusion 212 8.2 Afterthoughts 213 8.2.1 Relevance and limitations of the study 213 8.2.2 Suggestions for further research 215 8.2.3 Suggestion for classroom practice 218 Summary 221 Samenvatting (Dutch Summary) 229 Sumário (Portuguese Summary) 237 References 249 Appendices About the Author xi
LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Some indicators of effectiveness at different levels of the educational system in Mozambique in the year 2002 44 3.1 Piaget s stages of development 53 4.1 Categories of description and conceptions of learning surveyed amongst first-year graduate students in Mozambique 91 5.1 Sample distribution by School and Gender (Study A) 101 5.2 Scale and sub-scales reliability after item deletion (Study A) 109 5.3 Factor loading of scale items (Study A) 112 5.4 Item loading for Factor 1 (Study A) 113 5.5 Item loading for Factor 2 (Study A) 114 5.6 Item loading for Factor 3 (Study A) 114 5.7 Item loading for Factor 4 (Study A) 115 5.8 Scale parameters (Study A) 116 5.9 Scale means for variable Religion (Study A) 117 5.10 Correlations between scales and variable Religion (Study A) 117 5.11 Correlations between scales and relevant independent variables (Study A) 118 5.12 Correlations between variables Family income, Father s and Mother s levels of education (Study A) 119 5.13 Correlation between Students Age and Mother Tongue (Study A) 119 5.14 Correlations between Name of School and Science or Arts orientation (Study A) 120 5.15 Regression Analysis for Scale 1 (Study A) 122 xii
5.16 Model Summary for Regression Analysis Scale 1 (Study A) 122 5.17 Regression Analysis for Scale 2 (Study A) 123 5.18 Model Summary for Regression Analysis Scale 2 (Study A) 123 5.19 Regression Analysis for Scale 4 (Study A) 123 5.20 Model Summary for Regression Analysis Scale 4 (Study A) 124 5.21 Sample distribution by School and by Gender (Study B) 128 5.22 Scale(s) used and their parameters (Study B) 130 5.23 Factor loading of scale items (Study B) 132 5.24 Item loading for Factor 1 (Study B) 133 5.25 Item loading for Factor 2 (Study B) 134 5.26 Item loading for Factor 3 (Study B) 135 5.27 Item loading for Factor 4 (Study B) 135 5.28 Scales and parameters (Study B) 136 5.29 Factor means for variable Religion (Study B) 139 5.30 Correlations between Factors and relevant independent variables (Study B) 139 5.31 Regression Analysis for Scale 1 (Study B) 141 5.32 Model Summary for Regression Analysis Scale 1 (Study B) 141 5.33 Regression Analysis for Scale 3 (Study B) 142 5.34 Model Summary for Regression Analysis Scale 3 (Study B) 142 5.35 Factor structures in Study A and in Study B 147 5.36 Number of items considered for pooled sample analysis 150 5.37 Component matrices of a 4-factor component analysis on the 41 items of the pooled sample, with and without a dummy variable 150 xiii
5.38 Component matrices of a 4-factor principal component analysis on 41 equivalent items of Study A and Study B and their common matrix of factor loadings after Target Rotation 153 5.39 Coefficients of equivalence 155 6.1 Distribution of the interviewees (Study C) 159 6.2 Sample of questionnaire items 176 6.3 The loading pattern matrix (Study D) 179 6.4 Item loading in Factor 1 (Study D) 180 6.5 Item loading in Factor 2 (Study D) 180 6.6 Scales and parameters (Study D) 181 6.7 Correlations between dimensions of epistemological beliefs and dimensions of perceptions of schooling (Study D) 182 7.1 Belief dimensions in Study A and in Study B 186 xiv
LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 The conceptual framework of the study 11 5.1 Scree plot (Study A) 110 5.2 Scree plot (Study B) 131 6.1 Scree plot (Study D) 178 7.1 Interrelations between Belief in Simple Learning and Authoritative Knowledge, perceptions of education and relevant independent and dependent variables 204 7.2 Interrelations between Belief in Quick Learning, perceptions of education and independent and dependent variables 204 7.3 Significant relations between relevant belief factors, patterns of perceptions of education, background variables, and academic performance 205 7.4 Path diagram of epistemological beliefs and perceptions of education in relation to some relevant backgrounds and academic performance 206 xv
LIST OF APPENDICES 1. Jacobson and Jehng (1999) Epistemological scale 2.* Epistemological questionnaire used in Study A (Portuguese version of Jacobson and Jehng s (1999) scale) 3. Inter-correlation Matrix (Study A) 4.* Epistemological questionnaire used in Study B (in Portuguese) 5. Epistemological questionnaire used Study B (English translation) 6. Inter-correlation Matrix (Study B) 7.* Questionnaire on the Perceptions of Education used in Study D (in Portuguese) 8. Questionnaire on the Perceptions of Education and items and dimensions used in Study D (English translation) 9. Inter-correlation Matrix (Study D) 10. Items used in the Procrustean Target Analyses * Available on motivated request at the author xvi