Kci Fi003033962

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/378309929
Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs in the Planning of

Korean Language Assessment
Article in korean language education research · December 2024

DOI: 10.20880/kler.2023.58.5.139
CITATIONS READS
0 35
2 authors, including:
Seongryeong Yu
Old Dominion University
6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Seongryeong Yu on 19 February 2024.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://dx.doi.org/10.20880/kler.2023.58.5.139
Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers’

Epistemological Beliefs in the Planning
of Korean Language Assessment
Cheon, Haeju Gyeongin National University of Education

Department of Korean Education
Lecturer (1st Author)
Yu, Seongryeong
Old Dominion University
Department of Teaching and Learning
Assistant Professor (Corresponding Author)
Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs in the Planning of Korean Language Assessment 139
I. Introduction
II. Literature Review
III. Methods
IV. Dynamics in Planning Performance Assessment Tasks
V. Discussion and Conclusion
I. Introduction
Epistemological beliefs, encompassing individuals’ perspectives

on knowledge and learning, exert a profound influence on various
aspects of daily life. Rooted in education and life experiences, these
beliefs not only determine the certainty, source, and structure of
knowledge but also influence the individual’s ability and speed in ac-
quiring knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, 1994; Schom-
mer-Aikins, 2004). Especially in the educational field, understanding
teachers’ epistemological beliefs becomes crucial for shaping and
enhancing the teaching and learning process, considering such be-
liefs are shaped by accumulated experiences (Penner-Williams et al.,
2019; Yilmaz & Sahin, 2011). Given the abundant evidence indicating
that the uptake in teaching practices and professional learning are
influenced by epistemological beliefs (Atlı & O’Dwyer, 2021; Schom-
mer-Aikins, 2004; Yilmaz & Sahin, 2011), understanding pre-service
teachers’ underlying beliefs is essential for providing effective teacher
education.
While international research on pre/in-service teachers’ episte-
mological beliefs about teaching and learning in (inter)disciplinary
subjects has been extensively covered in the literature (e.g., Lunn
Brownlee et al., 2017; Maggioni & Parkinson, 2008; Soleimani, 2020;
Viholainen et al., 2017; Yilmaz & Sahin, 2011), there is a noticeable
gap in national studies in Korea. To address the gap in the lack of
research on teachers’ epistemological beliefs in national studies,
this study aims to explore the epistemological beliefs of pre-service
teachers, with a specific focus on Korean language education (KLE).1
Through an examination of performance assessment task planning
by pre-service teachers, this study aims to identify their perspectives
and conceptions expressed in their assessment task. The task focuses
on one of the KLE standards, emphasizing the exploration of various
perspectives in constructing knowledge and expressing ideas in lan-
guage (Ministry of Education, 2022).
Given the profound connection between teachers’ epistemologi-
cal beliefs and their teaching practices, pre-service teachers need to
be exposed to constructivist teaching that allows them to construct
or reconstruct their beliefs about teaching (Yilmaz & Sahin, 2011).
The emphasis on pre-service teachers is particularly significant, con-
sidering they are in a formative stage, developing their teaching phi-
losophies and methodologies (Ketabi et al., 2014; Park, 2018a). This
process is evident in the task design within an assessment context,
revealing their understanding of knowledge ( Jang & Kwon, 2019). By
understanding how these beliefs shape their teaching practices (i.e.,
approaches to assessment tasks in KLE), this study stands at the inter-
section of educational philosophy and practical application.
To lay the groundwork for more informed and impactful edu-
cational practices and to form the foundation for an educational
philosophical approach, the study is structured around the following
research questions: (1) What are the epistemological beliefs of pre-
service teachers regarding teaching practices?, (2) How do pre-service
teachers approach the planning of performance assessment tasks?,
1 In this study, Korean Language Education refers to native language instruction target-
ing learners who use Korean as their first language.
142 KOREAN LANGUAGE EDUCATION RESEARCH / Vol. 58, No.5, Dec. 2023
and (3) How do task planning patterns vary among pre-service teach-
ers depending on their epistemological beliefs?
II. Literature Review
1. Epistemological beliefs of pre-service teachers in Korea
In the field of education research, the variation in classroom prac-

tices among teachers, despite similar pre-service training has been a
topic of interest (Campbell et al., 2004). One factor influencing these
practices is the concept of epistemological beliefs, initially introduced
by Perry (1968) and refined by Schommer (1990) across five dimen-
sions. These dimensions encompass certainty of knowledge (ranging
from absolute certainty to tentative beliefs), the structure of knowl-
edge (from simple to complex), the source of knowledge (wheth-
er it comes from authority or reason), ability to acquire knowledge
(whether learning ability is fixed or can be changed), and control of
knowledge (whether knowledge is acquired quickly or gradually).
Epistemological beliefs, as conceptualized by Schommer (1990,
1993), refer to beliefs about knowledge and learning shaped through
education and life experiences. These encompass not only the cer-
tainty, source, and structure of knowledge but also beliefs about one’s
ability and speed in acquiring knowledge. Moreover, epistemologi-
cal beliefs signify crucial personal tendencies influencing cognitive
processes (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Extensive research dating back
to the 1990s and including recent studies by scholars such as Ya-
dav & Koehler (2007), Newell et al. (2014), Bock & Erickson (2015),
Ubaque-Casallas & Aguirre-Garzón (2020), and Mpofu (2021) have
explored various aspects of language and literacy teachers’ epistemol-
ogy. In national studies, epistemological beliefs have been explored
in a limited way in the context of curriculum and instruction and
subject-focused such as science education (Cho & Yang, 2008; Jo et
al., 2009; Kim & Yeo, 2022; Oh & Lee, 2013; Sung et al., 2020).
Despite the wealth of research in this area, there remains a signif-
icant gap in understanding the epistemological beliefs of pre-service
teachers and the impact of those beliefs on teaching practices within
the unique context of KLE in Korea. This study delves into the beliefs
of pre-service teachers regarding their teaching of KLE by exploring
how those beliefs shape or regulate their planning of performance
assessment tasks, extending beyond considerations of classroom
management in general instructional practices. Specifically, within
the context of KLE, a refined interpretation of epistemic autonomy is
proposed in language aspects, acknowledging that the expression’s
ability to choose perspectives extends beyond a singular dimension.
In the context of task design in KLE performance assessment, episte-
mological beliefs manifest in complex ways that necessitate a more
intricate understanding than conventional models offer. By rethinking
the epistemological dimensions in the KLE context, this study contrib-
utes to a more nuanced understanding of how pre-service teachers
navigate and conceptualize their epistemic beliefs, providing valuable
insights for both research and pedagogical practice.
2. Performance assessment tasks in KLE
Recently, there has been a heightened emphasis on performance

assessment that continuously observes students, enabling practical
evaluation and moving beyond the traditional Korean language as-
sessment that prioritizes objectivity and fairness. According to Minis-
try of Education (1998), performance assessment was introduced to
implement a constructivist and holistic evaluation. In particular, per-
formance assessment in KLE can determine individual language profi-
ciency through the experience of engaging with tasks. Well-designed
assessments provide teachers with diverse and valuable information
as they entail comprehensive analysis of the process and results of
language performance as well as learners’ cognitive and affective as-
pects.
Wolf (1993) proposed various variables that influence the appli-
cation and outcomes of performance assessment in language educa-
tion. These include teachers’ competence as assessment experts, the
creation of an environment with systematically observable task condi-
tions, utilization of diverse assessment methods and contexts, evalua-
tion of language improvement over time, task settings that reflect the
reality of language use, and the collection and recording of meaning-
ful student results (Cheon, 1999). Planning performance assessments
in a constructivist manner that aligns with the intended evaluation
purpose requires teachers to consider and incorporate various factors
(Ryu et al., 2021). However, according to Lee (2008), KLE is reported
as one of the subjects where teachers in Korea feel the most difficulty
when planning and conducting performance assessments. Valid and
reliable assessment of learners’ language abilities requires teachers’
thorough consideration and expertise, and teachers often recognize
their limitations.
From this perspective, among the various internal characteristics
of teachers, epistemological beliefs are crucial as they influence what
and how students learn. Previous studies in Korea often analyzed the
differences in teachers’ performance based on epistemological beliefs
in the teaching and learning context, such as lesson planning ( Jo
et al., 2009; Park, 2018b). In this study, we hypothesized that there
would be differences in pre-service teachers’ planning and execution
of assessments based on their epistemological beliefs.
III. Methods
The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences in the

patterns of performance assessment task plans for KLE among pre-
service elementary teachers based on their epistemological beliefs.
To achieve this, the research targeted 150 junior (third-year) students
from two national universities of education in Korea. University A is
located in the Gyeonggi province, and 86 students (57.3%) from that
school participated in the research. University B is situated in the
Jeonnam province, with 64 students (42.7%) participating in the study.
Among the total sample, 70.7% were female (n=106), and 29.3% were
male (n=44). To assess participants’ epistemological beliefs and per-
formance assessment plans in KLE, a two-part questionnaire was pro-
vided. Participants who agreed to the study received an explanation
of the research during the <Korean Language Arts Education II> class
and completed the questionnaire by hand. Participants independently
responded to the questionnaire items for 30 minutes.
1. Epistemological beliefs
The first part of the questionnaire included a survey to assess

the independent variable of epistemological beliefs. To achieve this,
a questionnaire on epistemological beliefs based on Schommer’s
(1990) items was translated into Korean. The questionnaire consisted
of 63 items related to five dimensions: Simple Knowledge, Certain
Knowledge, Authority Source, Innate Ability, and Quick Learning.
Participants responded to each item, reflecting their beliefs about un-
derstanding, knowledge, and facts, employing a 5-point Likert scale
(1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree). The survey’s validity was
substantiated through prior quantitative studies involving pre-service
teachers in Korea (Oh & Lee, 2013; Yoo, 2016). For this study, the
translated items were reviewed by three KLE researchers and finalized
after necessary modifications.
To validate the appropriate structure of the 63 items into five fac-
tors for the sample in this study, reliability tests were conducted. The
initial Cronbach’s α for all 63 items was .764, indicating appropriate
reliability even though the sample size was highly restricted com-
pared to the number of survey items. Following the reliability coef-
ficient, a total of 8 items were removed. Consequently, Cronbach’s α
value for the remaining 55 items was adjusted to .781.
Table 1. Cronbach’s α for Epistemological Belief Domains and Subsets
Dimension Subsets # of Items Reversed Cronbach’s α
1) Seek Single Answer 11 4

1. Simple
.540
Knowledge
2) Avoid Integration 7 3
1) Avoid Ambiguity 3 0
2. Certain
.441
Knowledge
2) Knowledge is Certain 5 3
3. 1) Don’t Criticize Authority 6 3

Authority .140
Source 2) Depend on Authority 3 1
1) Can’t Learn How to Learn 4 4

4. Innate
2) Success is Unrelated to Hard Work 3 2 .494
Ability
3) Ability to Learn is Innate 4 0
1) Learning is Quick 5 2
5. Quick
2) Learn First Time 2 1 .401
Learning
3) Concentrated Effort is a Waste of Time 2 1
TOTAL 55 24 .781
Despite the item deletion, the range of reliability for domains re-
mained between .140 and .540 indicating a relatively low level. How-
ever, accurately measuring epistemological beliefs can be challenging,
and low reliability may be anticipated (Schommer, 1994). Therefore,
the study proceeded with basic statistics and cluster analysis based on
the data for the final 55 items after item removal.
2. Aspects of performance assessment plans in KLE
The second section of the questionnaire featured a combination
of multiple-choice and open-ended questions aimed at quantitatively
examining the planning aspects of performance assessments in KLE
by pre-service elementary teachers. Given that pre-service elementary
teachers are expected to teach all subjects, understanding how their
beliefs are specifically expressed in certain subjects, such as KLE, is
crucial to understanding the relationships between the beliefs and
the practices. Participants were instructed to design performance as-
sessments freely for the 6th-grade achievement standard: “[6K02-04]
Read various texts reflecting diverse perspectives related to the prob-
lem and utilize them for problem-solving.” The standard was chosen
based on the implication that participants could incorporate their un-
derstanding of knowledge and how to apply it in diverse contexts
(Ministry of Education, 2022). As outlined by Cheon (2001), perfor-
mance assessments should facilitate the direct observation of essential
and authentic tasks aligned with the curriculum content. Therefore,
an accurate understanding of the achievement standard and subse-
quent development of tasks based on this understanding are crucial
components of assessment. In this study, the differences in partici-
pants’ comprehension of the achievement standard and planning of
performance assessment were systematically investigated using sur-
vey responses.
For the item-specific types in Table 2, both quantitative and quali-
tative analysis methods were employed. Firstly, for items where par-
ticipants could choose multiple characteristics of the nature of the
planned performance assessment, quantitative analyses such as fre-
quency analysis and chi-square tests were conducted. These analyses
aimed to examine whether the nature of the performance assessment
pursued by pre-service teachers varied according to their epistemo-
logical belief types.
Table 2. Composition of Test Items for Examining Patterns in Performance Assess-
ment Planning
Response
Area Example
Type
“Describe your understanding

Open
1. Understanding of Achievement Standards of the given achievement stan-
Response
dard.”
1) Behavioral Areas
According to Educational
Objective Classification “Indicate the nature of the
2. Nature of performance assessment you
2) Difficulty Multiple
Performance would like to conduct, consid-
choice
Assessment ering Korean language teaching
3) Performance Assessment
and learning context given.”
Method
4) Allocated Sessions (hours)
1) Evaluation Tasks and

“Freely describe the perfor-
Methods
mance assessment plan you
3. Specific
would like to implement, con- Open
Evaluation 2) Specific Evaluation
sidering Korean language Response
Elements Elements
teaching and learning context
given.”
3) Evaluation Criteria
Secondly, a qualitative analysis based on grounded theory (Strauss

& Corbin, 1998) was conducted to understand the patterns of compre-
hension of achievement standards and the plans for performance as-
sessment. Similar concepts were organized based on shared attributes
and dimensions, and subsequent comparisons were made between
each characteristic and participants’ epistemological beliefs. Employ-
ing the inherent categorization technique of grounded theory allowed
for the identification of the types of epistemological beliefs held by
pre-service teachers, shedding light on the approach each teacher
took toward assessment (Chenitz & Swanson, 1986).
Regarding the transcribed open-ended questions for performance
assessment tasks, codes emerged during data review and re-review
depending on the belief profiles. During this open coding phase,
a categorical aggregation process was implemented to identify and
cluster related codes into broader themes or categories (i.e., present-
ing various perspectives, autonomy of choice, realistic problems and
solutions, validity, problem understanding, self-appropriation, real-
life application, problem-solving attitude, and observation in real-life
contexts). Aligning with thematic analysis, researchers engaged in this
process by re-reading the raw data to categorize the clusters. This
axial coding involved a selective coding process, focused on refind-
ing and organizing the categories. The resulting data were then con-
solidated and reduced to derive meaning by connecting interrelated
elements (Creswell, 2013). Following the contextualization and rep-
resentation of the analyzed data, Schommer’s (1990) epistemological
beliefs were adjusted to present the relationships within each group,
serving as a framework to illustrate the patterns of these relationships.
IV. Dynamics in Planning Performance Assessment

Tasks
1. Aspects of individual epistemological beliefs
In this study, the epistemological beliefs of pre-service elemen-

tary teachers in Korea were examined based on Schommer’s (1990)
survey items. Employing reliability tests and factor analysis, basic
statistical analysis was conducted on the final selection of 55 items.
The results, as presented in Table 3, indicate that the sub-factor with
the highest average is ‘Knowledge is Certain (m=3.46; sd=.53)’, while
the sub-factor with the lowest average is ‘Can’t Learn How to Learn
(m=2.19; sd=.60)’. In other words, most participants believe that cer-
tain knowledge or facts exist. Thus, it was expected that the partici-
pants would be positive about the learning curriculum or contents in
the discipline. On the other hand, there was an observed tendency to
perceive learning ability or strategies as developmental.
Table 3. Basic Statistical Results by Subsets of Epistemological Belief
Dimension Subsets m sd
1) Seek Single Answer 2.85 0.41

1. Simple Knowledge
2) Avoid Integration 2.29 0.39
1) Avoid Ambiguity 3.06 0.71

2. Certain Knowledge
2) Knowledge is Certain 3.46 0.53
1) Don’t Criticize Authority 3.00 0.36

3. Authority Source
2) Depend on Authority 2.59 0.51
1) Can’t Learn How to Learn 2.19 0.60
4. Innate Ability 2) Success is Unrelated to Hard Work 2.49 0.48
3) Ability to Learn is Innate 3.01 0.60
1) Learning is Quick 2.62 0.47
5. Quick Learning 2) Learn First Time 2.89 0.60
3) Concentrated Effort is a Waste of Time 2.86 0.79
The main purpose of this study was to examine the differences in

the understanding and performance assessment plans of pre-service
teachers in KLE based on their epistemological beliefs. Epistemologi-
cal belief types were identified by K-means cluster analysis. The mean
of each subsets of epistemological beliefs dimensions in Table 3 was
converted into a standardized score, and the scores were then utilized
in cluster analysis. The dendrogram, calculated based on Euclidean
distances, revealed a balanced distribution of cases across three clus-
ters, indicating distinct types. The K-means cluster analysis further
confirmed the presence of three clusters, as depicted in Figure 1 be-
low.
Figure 1. Types of Epistemological Beliefs Among Pre-service Elementary Teachers
As shown in Figure 1, Clusters 2 and 3 exhibit contrasting patterns

across all subsets of epistemological beliefs. Among the three groups,
Cluster 2 emerged with the highest proportion at 51.3% (n=77). Sub-
sequently, Cluster 1 followed with 24.7% (n=37), and Cluster 3 with
24.0% (n=36) which is a very similar ratio.
The observed results are similar to patterns identified in Schom-
mer’s (1990, 1994) questionnaires used in this study. According to
Schommer (1990), learners’ epistemological beliefs can be broadly
categorized into two types: Naive and Sophisticated. Learners with
naive beliefs perceive knowledge as singular, discovered and trans-
mitted by authorities, and they believe that learning ability is innate.
Learners with sophisticated beliefs, on the other hand, consider
knowledge to be constructed through individual learning and subject
to change due to its uncertainty. These two groups of learners corre-
spond to Clusters 1 and 3 in this study.
Apart from these, there was another cluster, Cluster 2, showing
inconsistent responses and contrasting scores within sub-factors. A
similar group to Cluster 2 has been identified in previous studies
on epistemological beliefs and labeled as a ‘Mixed’ group. Jo et al.
(2009), examining the epistemological beliefs of domestic elemen-
tary and middle school teachers, and Park (2018b), who investigated
changes in epistemological beliefs before and after teaching practi-
cum among pre-service elementary teachers, both identified a group
of pre-service teachers with mixed belief types.
Cluster 2 in this study exhibits a distinctive characteristic in that
the tendencies within each of the five epistemological belief dimen-
sions are contrasting. While acknowledging variables such as Simple
Knowledge and Certain Knowledge, participants rejected the notion
of Innate Ability. This implies that Cluster 2, the Mixed group, under-
stands that knowledge to learn can develop progressively, yet they
firmly believe in the clear existence of the knowledge they need to
learn. The ambivalent responses towards Authority Source and Quick
Learning highlight the distinct characteristics of Cluster 2. Firstly, they
acknowledge that knowledge is established by authorities but do not
excessively rely on those authorities, rather embracing new perspec-
tives. Secondly, they demonstrate a nuanced stance on learning, as-
suming that if one possesses sufficient ability, rapid acquisition of
specific content is possible; however, they perceive that this does not
manifest effectively in actual learning situations.
The inconsistent response pattern of Cluster 2 may be attributed
to the previously mentioned issues with low item reliability in particu-
lar dimensions such as Authority Source, as discussed in Chapter III.
Firstly, the nature of the survey tool using a self-reported Likert scale
may have led to low response fidelity or internal inconsistency. Sec-
ondly, each area of the epistemological beliefs involves both knowl-
edge and understanding and an individual’s experiences and behav-
ioral characteristics based on those beliefs. Therefore, a gap between
an individual’s epistemological belief orientation and the manifesta-
tion of their responses can occur. Considering that all participants in
this study shared the identity of pre-service elementary teachers, it is
plausible that they consciously aligned their responses with societal
expectations of the belief expected of a teacher. This alignment could
contribute to the inconsistency observed within Cluster 2, given the
participants’ high sincerity in responding to the performance assess-
ment activities presented in the latter part of the survey.
Table 4. Basic Statistical Results by Epistemological Belief Types
1. Simple 2. Certain 3. Authority

Dimension 4. Innate Ability 5. Quick Learning
Knowledge Knowledge Source
Subset* SSA AI AA KC DCA DA CHL SUH ALI LQ LF CEW
F 30.17 27.67 41.47 31.29 34.61 21.54 15.80 7.82 40.49 57.08 4.54 6.63
ANOVA
p =.00 =.00 =.00 =.00 =.00 =.00 =.00 <.01 =.00 =.00 <.05 <.01
[Cluster 1] m 3.14 2.56 3.55 3.74 3.19 2.99 2.62 2.73 3.58 3.09 3.08 3.09
Naive
(n=37) sd 0.33 0.33 0.59 0.47 0.30 0.37 0.60 0.37 0.55 0.44 0.49 0.77
[Cluster 2] m 2.86 2.31 3.15 3.56 3.07 2.52 2.05 2.36 2.94 2.59 2.90 2.92
Mixed
(n=77) sd 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.46 0.27 0.42 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.32 0.57 0.73
[Cluster 3] m 2.51 1.99 2.36 2.96 2.64 2.33 2.02 2.51 2.58 2.19 2.67 2.47
Sophisticated
(n=36) sd 0.36 0.32 0.54 0.40 0.37 0.56 0.58 0.47 0.43 0.35 0.71 0.83
* SSA=Seek single answer; AI=Avoid Integration; AA=Avoid Ambiguity; KC=Knowledge is

certain; DCA=Don’t criticize authority; DA=Depend on authority; CHL=Can’t learn how to learn;
SUH=Success is unrelated to hard work; ALI=Ability to learn is innate; LQ=Learning is quick;
LF=Learn first time; CEW=Concentrated effort is a waste of time
The basic statistical results by sub-area according to epistemolog-

ical belief types are presented in Table 4 above. The ANOVA revealed
significant mean differences among types. However, the chi-square
test indicated no significant differences in epistemological belief types
based on demographic characteristics such as gender (p=.278), school
affiliation (p=.814), and specific major (p=.588). This implies that epis-
temological beliefs are constructed based on individuals’ experiences
and attitudes toward knowledge and learning, rather than being influ-
enced by the groups they belong to.
2. Epistemological beliefs in action
In this study, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were con-

ducted to examine the patterns in performance assessment planning
among pre-service elementary teachers. Specifically, to facilitate quan-
titative analysis, multiple-choice items, as presented in Table 2, were
included in the task planning questionnaire. This approach aimed
to allow pre-service teachers to independently select their intended
plans for specific achievement standards, enabling a comprehensive
analysis of open-ended responses. Participants indicated the stages
they aimed for in the behavioral domain based on the classification
of educational objectives, along with an assessment of the anticipated
difficulty. Furthermore, they provided details about the specific meth-
ods of performance assessment and the allocated lesson sessions they
planned to conduct The following results present an analysis of par-
ticipants’ responses to each item.
Table 5. Educational Objectives Classification of Performance Assessments Ex-

pected by Pre-Service Teachers
Taxonomy Knowledge Understanding Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Total
Response N 26 78 127 80 58 79 448
In Response(%) 5.8 17.4 28.3 17.9 12.9 17.6 100
In Case(%) 17.3 52 84.7 53.3 38.7 52.7 298.7
Firstly, the aim was to examine the patterns of educational ob-

jective classification in performance assessments, constructed based
on the achievement standard, “[6K02-04] Read various texts reflecting
diverse perspectives related to the problem and utilize them for prob-
lem-solving.” Table 5 above illustrates a frequency analysis of multiple
responses, providing insights into the 448 responses from 150 partici-
pants. Participants reported an average of 2.99 areas (sd=1.24) corre-
sponding to the educational objectives of their planned performance
assessments. Among the seven categories of educational objectives,
the ‘Application (28.3%)’ area was most frequently mentioned as the
goal of performance assessments. This outcome aligns with the em-
phasis on reading various perspectives and utilizing them to solve
problems, as stated in the achievement standard itself. Notably, the
ratio of participants selecting the Knowledge area was 5.8%, contrast-
ing with these results. Also, the selection rates for the Understanding,
Analysis, and Evaluation areas were at similar levels.
Table 6. Cross-Analysis Results of Educational Objectives Classification by Se-

lected Domain Number
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Selected domain Total
(Naive) (Mixed) (Sophisticated)
Total N 37 77 36 150
n 11 9 6 26
Knowledge
In cluster (%) 29.7 11.7 16.7
n 23 36 19 78
Understanding
In cluster (%) 62.2 46.8 52.8
n 31 63 33 127
Application
In cluster (%) 83.8 81.8 91.7
n 21 39 20 80
Analysis
In cluster (%) 56.8 50.6 55.6
n 19 26 13 58
Synthesis
In cluster (%) 51.4 33.8 36.1
n 20 36 23 79
Evaluation
In cluster (%) 54.1 46.8 63.9
According to the ANOVA test results, there was a significant dif-

ference in the pattern of educational objective classification based on
the three types of epistemological beliefs (p=.016). Clusters 1 (m=3.38;
sd=1.36) and 3 (m=3.17; sd=1.25) selected more objectives than Clus-
ter 2 (m=2.71; sd=1.11). Although the chi-square test revealed no sig-
nificant differences, the patterns of performance assessment goal-set-
ting in each cluster became more apparent through the cross-analysis
based on the epistemological belief types presented in Table 6.
All three groups predominantly selected objectives related to Un-
derstanding, Application, and Analysis for the specified achievement
criterion. However, Cluster 1 (29.7%) had a relatively higher propor-
tion of Knowledge objectives compared to Cluster 2 (11.79%) and
Cluster 3 (16.7%). Additionally, Cluster 3 (63.9%) had a relatively high-
er proportion of Evaluation objectives compared to Cluster 1 (54.1%)
and Cluster 2 (46.8%). Summarizing these results, the Naive (Cluster
1) group’s pre-service teachers exhibited a pattern of setting multiple
educational goals comprehensively for the performance assessment
task, including the Knowledge domain. On the other hand, pre-ser-
vice teachers in the Sophisticated (Cluster 3) group reflect higher-
level educational goals, such as Application, Analysis, and Evaluation,
in their tasks. The Mixed (Cluster 2) group, while having a smaller
number of selected areas, prioritized the attainment of goals related
to application.
Secondly, the response results regarding the anticipated difficulty
of performance assessments show that participants primarily expect-
ed a moderate level of difficulty for the performance assessments
they planned. Among the 150 participants, 91 pre-service teachers
(60.7%) anticipated a moderate difficulty level, while 39.3% (n=59)
expected a high difficulty level. No participants expected a low dif-
ficulty level for performance assessments. The chi-square test results
showed no significant difference in the pattern of difficulty level set-
tings for performance assessments based on epistemological belief
types (p=.696).
Table 7. Patterns of Task Types in Performance Assessments Planned by Pre-
Service Teachers
Type Response N In Response (%) In Case (%)
Realistic problem solving 84 24.6 56.0
Practical experiences 11 3.2 7.3
Observation 41 12.0 27.3
Oral exam 8 2.3 5.3
Discussion 84 24.6 56.0
Portfolio 22 6.4 14.7
Learning report 22 6.4 14.7
Response essay assessment 67 19.6 44.7
Multiple choice 1 0.3 0.7
Other 2 0.6 1.3
Total 342 100 228
Thirdly, the response patterns of participants regarding the types

of tasks in performance assessments were examined. Results from the
multiple-choice questionnaires, where 150 participants specified the
types of tasks in their designed performance assessments, revealed
a total of 342 response frequencies. The multi-response frequency
analysis table is presented in Table 7. All participants selected ‘Realis-
tic Problem Solving (24.6%)’ and ‘Discussion (24.6%)’ task types most
frequently. Following closely was a high proportion of selections for
the ‘Response essay (19.6%)’ assessment task. In contrast, the least-
selected task type was the ‘Multiple-Choice (0.3%)’ assessment.
This tendency extends the pattern observed in Table 5, where
the proportion of participants selecting the Knowledge domain as
an evaluation goal was the lowest. This emanates from the inherent
nature of performance assessments, aiming to directly and practically
evaluate the performance of learning tasks (Cheon, 2001). The chi-
square test results indicated a significant difference in the two se-
lecting performance assessment task types based on epistemological
belief types: Response essay assessment (p<.05) and Other (p<.05).
Among these, only two participants from the Cluster 1 (Naive) group
selected the Other category, opting for discussion and video produc-
tion activities. In contrast, the results reveal cluster-based differences
in the use of the response essay assessment in spite of being chosen
by a majority of the total sample (44.7%). Among the three clusters,
the Sophisticated group selected the Response essay assessment type
at the highest rate (58.3%). While the Naive group also adopted this
type of task with a majority (51.4%), the Mixed group showed a lower
selection rate, with only 35.1% opting for it.
Lastly, the number of lesson hours allocated for the designed per-
formance assessments was investigated. Participants responded that
they would allocate an average of 2.9 sessions (sd=2.1) to assess the
specified achievement criteria. The ANOVA revealed no significant
difference in the allocation of sessions for performance assessments
based on epistemological belief types (F=1.425; p=.244). However,
among the three types, Cluster 1 (Naive) had the highest average
sessions allocated (m=3.30; sd=2.82), followed by Cluster 3 (Sophis-
ticated) with a higher average (m=2.93; sd=2.00). Finally, Cluster 2
(Mixed) had the lowest average sessions allocated (m=2.60; sd=1.71).
In summary, the quantitative analysis of various sub-factors that
can reveal the nature of performance assessment plans shows a lim-
ited significant difference based on epistemological belief types. An
overall trend, pre-service teachers in Korea designed performance as-
sessment tasks for 6th-grade students incorporating realistic problem-
solving and response essay-type tasks. They planned the task with an
average number of 2.9 session hours intending to observe students’
performance using multiple sessions. This constructed performance
assessment was expected to be of moderate to high difficulty for 6th-
grade students, focusing on achieving a composite Understanding,
Application, and Analysis of educational goals. The Naive group dem-
onstrated the most diverse selection of instructional goals for perfor-
mance assessment, often including lower-level educational objectives
encompassing Knowledge and Understanding domains. In contrast,
the Sophisticated group exhibited a higher proportion of goals de-
manding a higher dimension such as the Evaluation domain, actively
utilizing the Response essay assignment type. Differences were found
in the number, patterns, and types of instructional goals selected for
performance assessment, as well as in the types of assessment tasks,
based on epistemological belief groups.
3. Planning patterns for epistemological beliefs
The study investigated the open-ended responses of pre-service

teachers concerning performance assessment tasks. The qualitative
analysis revealed distinct patterns in the assessment plans, deviating
from the previous survey results. Figure 2 displays excerpted sample
responses from each group.
(1) Sample response of “Evaluation Tasks and Methods” (Mixed)
(2) Sample response of “Specific Assessment Elements” (Naive)
(3) Sample response of “Evaluation Criteria” (Sophisticated)
Figure 2. Sample responses from the Naive Group, Mixed Group, and Sophisti-
cated Group corresponding to each category
The themes revealed by each group were classified by similar
characteristics based on categories and described according to Schom-
mer’s dimensions. Table 8 illustrates pre-service teachers’ task plan
patterns based on their responses in alignment with categories. Ad-
ditionally, to enhance the connection between sub-categories, themes
among each group, and their relevance to dimensions, a ‘contents’
column was added.
Common elements across all groups include the autonomy to
choose perspectives, allowing participants to express diverse view-
points, and exercising flexibility in their selections in the category of
Evaluation Tasks and Methods. These elements potentially align with
the explicitly indicated achievement standards of ‘presenting various
perspectives.’ A focus on the ability to read and comprehend dif-
ferent perspectives emerged as a trend among the participants, re-
flecting a common understanding of knowledge acquisition through
varied viewpoints. For example, all three groups equally emphasized
‘viewpoints/perspective analysis’ and ‘understanding perspectives’ by
indicating the need to “analyze perspectives in the given texts” or to
“understand viewpoints based on the presented situation.”
In the Mixed group, tasks and methods revolved around individu-
al perspective analysis and self-reflection, forming a common pattern
observed across all three groups. Notably, explicit presentations of
real-life situations were absent, and the proposal of multiple sessions
was not prominently featured. In the Evaluation Tasks and Methods
category, the group tended to provide related readings, exposing
participants to various perspectives, rather than presenting specific
real-life examples. Unlike the other two groups that provided specific
situations in real life, the Mixed group responses reflect a context
where perspectives are found within unspecified situations, such as
“presenting problem situations.” In terms of Specific Assessment El-
ements, the group consistently emphasized the use of ‘self-criteria’
for problem-solving, maintaining balance within Schommer’s (1990)
dimensions. Evaluation Criteria appeared less explicit in terms of the
number of proposed sessions compared to the other groups, which
aligns with the findings from the quantitative analysis. With a limited
number of proposed sessions and educational objectives, the group
showed a detailed focus on the establishment of personal criteria,
problem-solving judgment criteria, and a distinct resolution-oriented
approach.
The Naive group demonstrated a comprehensive approach
through tasks involving a realistic understanding of knowledge. Their
activities included the integration of mind maps, assessments span-
ning multiple sessions, idea boards, role-playing, discussions, and
writing to articulate personal viewpoints. In their approach to Evalu-
ation Tasks and Methods, the group demonstrated profound compre-
hension of the diversity of knowledge, specifically perspectives.
This approach reveals a strategy that goes beyond simplistic
knowledge acquisition, emphasizing the belief that diverse knowl-
edge can be acquired in real-life situations. In terms of Specific As-
sessment Elements, the Naive group exhibited a pattern akin to the
Mixed group, particularly in showcasing ‘Certain Knowledge’. Howev-
er, the distinction lies in the expression of personal viewpoints. While
both Mixed and Naive groups emphasize concrete personal perspec-
tives, the Naive group stands out in their approach. In understanding
knowledge, the presence of expressions like “critical reading” and
“accepting critically” in the context of ‘Certain Knowledge’ reveals a
recurrent theme of ‘critique’.
This pattern conflicts with Schommer’s (1990) description of the
Naive, as the group reflects knowledge not as an absolute transmis-
sion but rather as acquired through critical interpretation. It serves as
a noteworthy example of pre-service teachers adjusting their epis-
temological beliefs despite being in their developmental stage. This
intention can be interpreted as prioritizing the original purpose of
the KLE achievement standards, emphasizing an assessment of the
reading process that underscores learners’ critical interpretation and
perspective formation in educational execution. This aspect is evident
Table 8. Epistemological Beliefs in Patterns of Performance Assessment
Performance Assessment Tasks Epistemological Belief Schommer’s

Epistemology belief
Category Sub-category Contents Naive Mixed Sophisticated dimension
Understanding perspectives,
Understanding perspectives,
Presenting various Knowledge acquired through presenting diverse methods,
Perspective Analysis structuring assessments over N Simple Knowledge
perspectives inference and logic. structuring assessments over
sessions
Evaluation N sessions
Tasks and
Methods Autonomy of choice Knowledge is not fixed. Organizing my perspectives Appropriation Finding viewpoints similar to mine Certain Knowledge
Realistic problems Knowledge is acquired through life Researching relevant materials,

Presenting real-life situations Presenting real-life situations Innate Ability
and solutions experiences. writing personal perspectives
Emphasizing evidence over

Acquiring knowledge based on Organizing personal opinions Reading with diverse
Validity claims and the process over Simple Knowledge
valid reasoning. through diverse perspectives perspectives
resolution
Problem Knowledge is interrelated Reading and understanding from

Critical reading Problem-solving judgment criteria Authority Source
Specific understanding concepts. different perspectives
Assessment
Elements Knowledge requires individual
Grasping key content and
Self-appropriation understanding as it is not Expressing one’s viewpoints Establishing personal criteria Certain Knowledge
identifying differences
fragmented.
The ability to apply acquired The ability to apply knowledge Explaining personal choices on
Real-life application Ability to solve problems Innate Ability
knowledge in real life. in real-life scenarios perspective
Critical thinking, an Content of the respective Observation assessment,

Problem-solving The versatility to utilize knowledge attitude accepting diverse perspective, observation participation assessment,
Authority Source
attitude in various situations. perspectives, even those participation assessment, narrative assessment, evaluation
Evaluation different from one’s own worksheet following worksheet and textbook
Criteria
Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs in the Planning of Korean Language Assessment
The capacity to transform and Effectively applying and Adequately perceiving situations
Observation in real-
apply acquired knowledge in connecting diverse viewpoints and articulating the perspective Acquiring knowledge without bias Innate Ability
life contexts
real life. in problem-solving clearly
163
in the Evaluation Criteria, where the assessment includes checking
whether the problems were comprehended and resolved critically.
Furthermore, this response underscores the practical application of
knowledge in real-life scenarios, emphasizing the prioritization of the
problem-solving process over mere resolution.
The Sophisticated group exhibited a pattern similar to that of the
Naive group in understanding perspectives, structuring assessments
over multiple sessions, and presenting real-life situations. This finding
focused on real-life applications aligns with the quantitative analysis
result that the Sophisticated group had a high tendency to choose the
Application domain in their task planning. However, in organizing
their viewpoints, the Sophisticated group employed expressions such
as “find/choose perspectives similar to their own,” contrasting with
the expressions used by the Naive and Mixed groups, which empha-
sized “establishing” and “making perspectives their own.”
This finding suggests a tendency in the Sophisticated group to
select viewpoints from the given knowledge, interpreting it as a pat-
tern of accepting knowledge as is, without transforming it, akin to
certain knowledge. In Specific Assessment Elements, expressions like
“explaining their choices” indicated an assessment pattern of choos-
ing knowledge from the given set without modifying it. Another no-
table difference lies in the emphasis on using narrative assessments
and guide materials for Evaluation Criteria. Given the nature of the
Sophisticated group, which perceives knowledge as uncertain, the
use of worksheets and textbooks, which require lengthy writing of
information, aligns with the authority source dimension, providing a
means to ascertain the diverse perspectives of students.
It is essential to acknowledge that epistemological beliefs are not
static; rather, they evolve through the interplay of personal develop-
ment and the surrounding contextual environment (Bromme et al.,
2010). Each dimension operates independently in terms of charac-
teristics and functions, and the developmental pace may vary across
dimensions. Building on Jo et al.’s (2009) insight that comprehending
an individual’s epistemological beliefs necessitates considering all di-
mensions collectively, it becomes apparent that a comprehensive ap-
proach is vital for a nuanced understanding.
V. Discussion and Conclusion
The analysis of pre-service teachers’ responses to performance

assessment tasks revealed patterns among the Naive (n=37), Mixed
(n=77), and Sophisticated groups (n=36). Despite the initial expecta-
tions, quantitative data on the nature of performance assessment task
planning show limited significant differences based on epistemologi-
cal belief types. To assess the 6th-grade KLE achievement standard
related to reading various perspectives on a given topic and utilizing
them for problem-solving, the Sophisticated group established high-
level behavioral objectives, akin to those in the assessment domain.
To accomplish this, they opted for Response essay-type assignments.
According to Scardamalia & Bereiter (1987), writing enables individu-
als to integrate information, restructure knowledge, and bring about
conceptual changes. Therefore, the active utilization of Response es-
say-type assignments by the Sophisticated group can be considered a
well-aligned outcome, given the context of the performance assess-
ment, educational behavioral objectives, and task settings. In contrast,
the Naive cluster selected a combination of diverse behavioral objec-
tive levels, but the results indicated a tendency to include lower-level
behavioral objectives, such as Knowledge and Understanding, more
frequently than other clusters.
The findings are somewhat consistent but distinct from Schom-
mer’s (1990) definitions of epistemological belief dimensions, spe-
cifically in the Authority Source and Simple Knowledge dimensions,
reflecting the unique context of pre-service teachers’ “epistemic cog-
nition” regulation (Sandoval et al., 2016). This can be interpreted as
evidence of pre-service teachers making efforts to plan assessments
that align with the objectives and intentions of Korean language
achievement standards, attempting to regulate their own epistemo-
logical beliefs. Sandoval et al. (2016) have defined epistemic cogni-
tion as the individual’s endeavor to contemplate their understanding,
the nature of knowledge, its practical application, and the methods
by which they ascertain the validity of their knowledge in interdis-
ciplinary fields. For example, instances from the Naive group that
emphasize critical interpretation align with the notion that knowledge
is acquired through nuanced understanding rather than passive ac-
ceptance, contrasting with Schommer’s (1990) definition. A compari-
son among the groups reveals differences in when they show their
beliefs in practical ways (i.e., performance assessment task) that these
nuances in their engagement with and interpretation of knowledge
demonstrate certain aspects of pre-service teachers’ epistemic cogni-
tion. Due to the limited research on teachers’ epistemological beliefs
in the domestic context, there is also a scarcity of studies examining
epistemic cognition. Therefore, if subsequent research focuses more
on the design of studies exploring epistemic cognition as a meta-be-
lief regulatory behavior, it could contribute to supporting the validity
of the results obtained in this study.
While all groups highlighted perspective analysis and understand-
ing, the Mixed group’s distinct expressions and the absence of real-life
scenarios indicate variations in their epistemological orientations. Al-
though the study concentrated on KLE, the findings hold potential for
broader application in other subjects or interdisciplinary contexts. Un-
derstanding these patterns is crucial for pre-service teacher education,
urging educators to recognize diverse epistemological perspectives
among students and tailor instruction to foster critical engagement
with knowledge, bridging the gap between theoretical understanding
and real-world application.
However, the study acknowledges a limitation arising from the
use of the original epistemological beliefs survey (Schommer, 1990).
The results might differ with a revised survey capturing developments
in epistemological beliefs over time. Specifically, confirmatory factor
analysis was not conducted to determine whether the survey instru-
ment was well-structured and applicable to Korean pre-service teach-
ers according to Schommer’s (1990) five factors. Due to the limited
sample size, there is also a possibility that it does not sufficiently
represent the entire population of pre-service elementary teachers in
Korea. Also, this study lacked items to assess the pre-service teachers’
background knowledge that might influence on their assessment task
planning. Despite these limitations, the study holds profound implica-
tions for understanding the dynamic relationship between pre-service
teachers’ epistemological beliefs in a natural context and their task
design in KLE, despite potential influences from coursework and the
potential applications of the relationships across diverse subjects and
disciplines. Furthermore, in order to ascertain whether the patterns
of assessment planning based on epistemological beliefs are unique
within the context of Korean language assessment, subsequent re-
search comparing other subject contexts should be conducted. Partic-
ularly, this study highlights the difference in competencies required,
as it encompasses all subjects for pre-service elementary teachers,
while pre-service secondary Korean language teachers focus specifi-
cally on KLE. Therefore, there is a need for follow-up research to
investigate the impact of epistemological beliefs among pre-service
secondary teachers.
This suggests that the study provides valuable insights that can in-
form future research and educational practices under the need for tai-
lored instructional strategies capable of accommodating diverse epis-
temological belief orientations and fostering critical engagement with
interdisciplinary knowledge. As the field progresses, further research
should delve deeper into the dynamics of epistemological beliefs,
offering a more comprehensive understanding of their development
and implications for effective teacher education. By discerning the in-
tricate connections between epistemology and assessment, educators
can refine teaching practices and better equip future teachers for the
multifaceted challenges of the classroom. It marks a significant step
toward unraveling the complex interplay between epistemology and
assessment in the context of pre-service teacher education.
* Submitted 2023.11.14.
First revision recieved 2023.11.21.
Accepted 2023.12.7.
REFERENCES
Atlı, H. H., & O’Dwyer, J. (2021). The contribution of personal epistemological beliefs
to uptake in in - service professional development: A case - study. Professional De-
velopment in Education, 0(0), 1 - 19.
Bock, A. K., & Erickson, K. A. (2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and prac-
tice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Per-
sons with Severe Disabilities, 40(2), 138 - 153.
Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for
adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacog-
nition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7 - 26.
Chenitz, W. C., & Swanson, J. M. (1986). From practice to grounded theory: Qualitative
research in nursing, Addison - Wesley.
Cheon, G. (1999). Performance assessment for reading. The Education of Korean Lan-
guage, 100, 201 - 224.
Cheon, G. (2001). Performance assessment and portfolio of Korean language arts, Ky-
oyookbook.
Cho, Y., & Yang, M. (2008). Secondary school teachers’ epistemological beliefs and
their relationship with teacher efficacy and instructional strategies. The Journal of
Yeolin Education, 16(1), 1 - 20.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry research design: Choosing among five ap-
proaches, Sage.
Jang, Y., & Kwon, D. (2019). A study on the relationship between epistemological be-
liefs and learner - centered teaching orientation of the elementary school teachers.
The Journal of Elementary Education Studies, 26(1), 27 - 48.
Jo, J., Park, K., & Kang, I. (2009). The teacher’s epistemological belief and instructional
design practice. Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 1 - 33.
Ketabi, S., Zabihi, R., & Ghadiri, M. (2014). Pre - service English teachers’ epistemologi-
cal beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. International Journal of Research
Studies in Psychology, 3(1), 3 - 12.
Kim, N., & Yeo, S. (2022). Epistemological beliefs of elementary school teachers in sci-
ence class according to gender and teaching experience. Journal of the Korean
Association for Science Education, 42(2), 277 - 287.
Lee, S. (2008). The actual conditions and improvements of performance Assessment in
Elementary Korean Language Education. Korean Language Education Research,
32, 33 - 65.
Lunn Brownlee, J., Ferguson, L. E., & Ryan, M. (2017). Changing teachers’ epistemic
cognition: A new conceptual framework for epistemic reflexivity. Educational
Psychologist, 52(4), 242 - 252.
Maggioni, L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epis-
temic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20,
445 - 461.
Ministry of Education (2022). Revised Korean language education instructional guid-
ance, Korea.
Mpofu, N. (2021). English language teaching in teacher education: A personal episte-
mology account. International Journal of Language Studies, 15(3), 89 - 106.
Newell, G. E., VanDerHeide, J., & Olsen, A. W. (2014). High school English language
arts teachers’ argumentative epistemologies for teaching writing. Research in the
Teaching of English, 49(2), 95 - 119.
Oh, S., & Lee, S. (2013). The effects of pre - service teachers’ epistemological beliefs
and self regulated learning on well - structured and ill - structured problem solving.
The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 30(3), 75 - 99.
Park, K. (2018a). A study on elementary pre - service teachers’ change of epistemologi-
cal belief and conception of instruction through teaching practice. Journal of
Learner - Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(19), 109 - 126.
Park, K. (2018b). The relationship between elementary pre - service teachers’ epistemo-
logical belief and their instructional planning. The Journal of Curriculum Studies,
36(1), 25 - 44.
Ryu, S., Chung, H., & Min, B. (2021). Optimization behaviors of a teacher focusing on
curriculum - instruction - evaluation integration: A case study of constructive incon-
sistency in a Korean language class. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(4),
61 - 90.
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting think-
ing about knowledge: Origins, issues, and future directions of research on epis-
temic cognition, Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 457 - 496.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming
in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Eds.), Advances in applied psycholin-
guistics (Vol. 2): Reading, writing, and language learning (pp.142 - 175), Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehen-
sion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498 - 504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among
secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406 - 411.
Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: tentative under-
standings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293 -
319.
Schommer - Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing
the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational
Psychologist, 39(1), 19 - 29.
Soleimani, N. (2020). ELT teachers’ epistemological beliefs and dominant teaching
style: A mixed method research. Asian - Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign
Language Education, 5, 1 - 20.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-
dures for developing grounded theory, Sage.
Sung, K., Shin, M., & Kim, E. (2020). An explorative analysis on the epistemological be-
liefs in science of elementary school students and teachers. School Science Jour-
nal, 14(4), 441 - 454.
Ubaque - Casallas, D. F., & Aguirre - Garzón, E. (2020). Re - signifying teacher episte-
mologies through lesson planning: A study on language student teachers. Profile:
Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 22(2), 131 - 144.
Viholainen, A., Asikainen, M., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2017). Mathematics student teachers’
epistemological beliefs about the nature of mathematics and the goals of math-
ematics teaching and learning in the beginning of their studies. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 159 - 171.
Wolf, K. P. (1993). From informal to informed assessment: Recognizing the role of the
classroom teacher, Journal of Reading, 36(7), 518 - 523.
Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in preservice teach-
ers’ interpretation of video cases of early - grade literacy instruction. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 335 - 361.
Yilmaz, H., & Sahin, S. (2011). Pre - service teachers’ epistemological beliefs and con-
ceptions of teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 73 - 88.
ABSTRACT
Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers’ Epistemological

Beliefs in the Planning of Korean Language
Assessment
Cheon, Haeju ·Yu, Seongryeong
This study explores the epistemological beliefs of pre-service el-

ementary teachers in Korean language education and their impact on
performance assessment task planning. Grounded in the correlation be-
tween teachers’ beliefs and instructional approaches, the research aims
to redefine Schommer’s (1990) epistemological dimensions in tasks de-
signed by pre-service teachers. Data from 150 participants were analyzed
quantitatively and qualitatively, revealing three belief-based clusters: Na-
ive (24.7%), Mixed (51.3%), and Sophisticated (24.0%). Task planning
patterns in all groups focus on individual perspective analysis and self-
reflection. The Mixed group emphasizes related readings, exposing par-
ticipants to various perspectives. In contrast, the Naive group employs
diverse tasks in multiple sessions, emphasizing critical interpretation and
real-life situations. The Sophisticated group chooses perspectives from
given texts, relying on textbooks or worksheets. Understanding how
these beliefs are shaped or regulated during the assessment task planning
informs the intersection of educational philosophy and practical applica-
tion, laying the groundwork for well-informed educational practices and
a nuanced understanding of epistemological beliefs.
keywords Epistemological belief, Performance assessment, Korean language

education, Pre-service elementary teacher, Teacher education, Cluster analysis,
Grounded theory
View publication stats

Kci Fi003033962

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kci Fi003033962

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kci Fi003033962

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs in the Planning of

Article in korean language education research · December 2024

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Unveiling Pre-Service Teachers’

Cheon, Haeju Gyeongin National University of Education

Epistemological beliefs, encompassing individuals’ perspectives

II. Literature Review

1. Epistemological beliefs of pre-service teachers in Korea

In the field of education research, the variation in classroom prac-

2. Performance assessment tasks in KLE

Recently, there has been a heightened emphasis on performance

The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences in the

The first part of the questionnaire included a survey to assess

Table 1. Cronbach’s α for Epistemological Belief Domains and Subsets

Dimension Subsets # of Items Reversed Cronbach’s α

1) Seek Single Answer 11 4

3. 1) Don’t Criticize Authority 6 3

1) Can’t Learn How to Learn 4 4

2. Aspects of performance assessment plans in KLE

The second section of the questionnaire featured a combination

“Describe your understanding

4) Allocated Sessions (hours)

1) Evaluation Tasks and

Secondly, a qualitative analysis based on grounded theory (Strauss

IV. Dynamics in Planning Performance Assessment

1. Aspects of individual epistemological beliefs

In this study, the epistemological beliefs of pre-service elemen-

1) Seek Single Answer 2.85 0.41

1) Avoid Ambiguity 3.06 0.71

1) Don’t Criticize Authority 3.00 0.36

1) Can’t Learn How to Learn 2.19 0.60

4. Innate Ability 2) Success is Unrelated to Hard Work 2.49 0.48

3) Ability to Learn is Innate 3.01 0.60

1) Learning is Quick 2.62 0.47

5. Quick Learning 2) Learn First Time 2.89 0.60

3) Concentrated Effort is a Waste of Time 2.86 0.79

The main purpose of this study was to examine the differences in

As shown in Figure 1, Clusters 2 and 3 exhibit contrasting patterns

Table 4. Basic Statistical Results by Epistemological Belief Types

1. Simple 2. Certain 3. Authority

Subset* SSA AI AA KC DCA DA CHL SUH ALI LQ LF CEW

* SSA=Seek single answer; AI=Avoid Integration; AA=Avoid Ambiguity; KC=Knowledge is

The basic statistical results by sub-area according to epistemolog-

In this study, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were con-

Table 5. Educational Objectives Classification of Performance Assessments Ex-

Taxonomy Knowledge Understanding Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Total

Response N 26 78 127 80 58 79 448

In Response(%) 5.8 17.4 28.3 17.9 12.9 17.6 100

In Case(%) 17.3 52 84.7 53.3 38.7 52.7 298.7

Firstly, the aim was to examine the patterns of educational ob-

Table 6. Cross-Analysis Results of Educational Objectives Classification by Se-

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

According to the ANOVA test results, there was a significant dif-

Type Response N In Response (%) In Case (%)

Realistic problem solving 84 24.6 56.0

Practical experiences 11 3.2 7.3

Observation 41 12.0 27.3

Oral exam 8 2.3 5.3

4) Allocated Sessions (hours)

1) Evaluation Tasks and