Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

Research Report

Exploring the structural relationships between high school students’Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and their utilization of onlineacademic help seeking

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.0690747-5632/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: #43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan.Tel.: +886 2 27303768; fax: 886 2 27303217.

E-mail addresses: wenchinggg@hotmail.com (W.-C. Lee), erin0825@ms58.hinet.net, yenlin.chiu@mail.ntust.edu.tw (Y.-L. Chiu), aljc@mail.ntust.edu.tw (J.-C. Liang),cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw (C.-C. Tsai).

URL: http://www.cctsai.net (C.-C. Tsai).1 Address: #43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan.

Wen-Ching Lee a, Yen-Lin Chiu b,1, Jyh-Chong Liang c,⇑,1, Chin-Chung Tsai b,1

a College Entrance Examination Center, Taiwanb Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwanc Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Keywords:Internet-specific epistemic beliefsOnline academic help seeking

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this study was to examine the structural relationships between the Internet-specific epi-stemic beliefs (ISEB) and the online academic help seeking (OAHS) of high school students in Taiwan.Data were collected from 342 Taiwanese high school students by utilizing two self-report instruments:the ISEB survey (including Uncertainty, Complexity and Self-Source of Internet-based knowledge as wellas Justification for Internet-based knowing) and the OAHS questionnaire (containing Information Search,Formal Query and Informal Query in online information searching contexts). The results of the exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as well as the alpha values indicated thatboth the ISEB and OAHS instruments possessed adequate validity and reliability. The path analyses withstructural equation modeling (SEM) further verified that students’ ISEB were related to their behaviors ofonline help seeking while undertaking academic tasks on the Internet. It is reported that students withnaïve beliefs regarding Uncertainty, Complexity and Self-Source of Internet-based knowledge intended toconduct online information help seeking strategies (Uncertainty: Formal Query, Informal Query; Complex-ity: Information Search, Formal Query, Informal Query; Self-Source: Informal Query). For example, studentswith naïve beliefs in Uncertainty of Internet-based knowledge had a higher tendency to use help seekingrelating to Formal Query and Informal Query. However, students who believed that course-relatedcontent on the Internet should be evaluated through different aspects of other sources (i.e., sophisticatedbeliefs regarding Justification for Internet-based knowing) were more likely to use Information Search andInformal Query online help seeking strategies.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Epistemic beliefs are defined as learners’ beliefs with respect tothe nature of knowledge and the process of knowing (Hofer &Pintrich, 1997). Studies have shown that learning processes,comprehension and academic achievements are strongly correlatedwith the epistemic beliefs of learners (Duell & Schommer-Aikins,2001; Ferguson & Bråten, 2013; Hofer, 2001). It has been indicatedthat epistemic beliefs may influence learners’ learning strategy

choices and their engagement in learning (Hofer & Pintrich,1997; Pintrich, 2002). There is also evidence indicating therelationships between epistemic beliefs and learning processes intraditional as well as Internet-based learning environments(Hofer, 2004a; Mason & Boldrin, 2008; Tsai, 2008). For example,it was reported that students’ preferences in constructivist episte-mology may predict their ubiquitous learning activities (Tsai, Tsai,& Hwang, 2012). As regards the Internet-based epistemology,empirical studies showed that students’ Internet-specific epistemicbeliefs may be linked to their web-based academic informationsearching and online self-regulatory learning activities (Chiu,Liang, & Tsai, 2013).

The roles of academic help seeking behaviors in students’ learn-ing activities and performances have been explored (e.g., Zusho &Barnett, 2011). In the online learning environments, the Internet-based academic help seeking behaviors in students’ learning werealso widely discussed (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2013b; Cheng & Tsai,

392 W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400

2011); however, the relationships between Internet-specificepistemic beliefs and online academic help seeking were onlyexamined in a small number of studies (e.g., Cheng, Liang, & Tsai,2013a). To sum up, the purpose of this study was to investigatethe relationships between high school students’ Internet-specificepistemic beliefs and online academic help seeking behaviorswhile searching information for their course-related tasks on theInternet.

1.1. Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs (ISEB)

Epistemic beliefs which are associated with learning practicesand academic achievements play an important role in students’learning activities (Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Hofer, 2001, 2004a;Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). According to Schommer (1990), epistemicbeliefs could be conceptualized as beliefs regarding knowledge andacquisition of knowledge. Epistemic beliefs also can be regarded asa part of the cognitive processes of thinking and reasoning, evalu-ating how individuals come to know (Hofer, 2000). Hofer (2004b)proposed that epistemic beliefs can be clarified by four dimensionsand be clustered into two aspects, namely the nature of knowledgeand the nature of knowing. In the nature of knowledge, the cer-tainty of knowledge regards beliefs in absolute and unchangingknowledge and the simplicity of knowledge concerns beliefs aboutisolated facts and interrelated concepts of knowledge; the sourceof knowledge assessing the origins of knowledge as well as the jus-tification of knowledge representing the approaches of evaluatingknowledge claims are denoted as the nature of knowing. Eachdimension may indicate a continuing scale that ranges fromabsolutist beliefs about knowledge (i.e., knowledge is certain andstable) to more sophisticated beliefs concerning knowledge (i.e.,knowledge is complex, tentative, and actively constructed).

The model of epistemic beliefs has been discussed in diversestudies which have examined discipline-specificity (e.g., Conley,Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004; Liang, Lee, & Tsai, 2010; Tsai,Ho, Liang, & Lin, 2011), topic-specificity (e.g., Bråten & Strømsø,2010; Bråten, Strømsø, & Samuelstuen, 2008; Strømsø, Bråten, &Samuelstuen, 2008), and culture-specificity (e.g., Bråten, Gil,Strømsø, & Vidal-Abarca, 2009; Karabenick & Moosa, 2005). Morerecently, the epistemic beliefs have also been explored in the Inter-net-based learning contexts (e.g., Bråten, Strømsø, & Samuelstuen,2005; Kammerer & Gerjets, 2012; Strømsø & Bråten, 2010).

Along with the rise of the technology-based learning, Internet-based learning is in widespread use and is recognized as an influ-ential role in the daily practice of contemporary education. TheInternet, as an important information source, has drawn theattention of researchers who are investigating epistemic beliefsin technology-based learning environments. Based on the view-point of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs, Hartley and Bendixen(2001) argued that the importance of epistemic beliefs in newtechnology-based learning environments might be greater thanin traditional ones. It is said that learners have more control overthe information retrieved on the Web than in traditional learningcontexts, and the Internet-based information will be justifiedthrough their own discretion. The role of epistemic beliefs instudents’ online learning is of concern among educationalresearchers (e.g., Bråten, 2008; Conley et al., 2004). Hofer (2004a)has proposed that if college students perceive knowledge as simpleand certain, they may find it unnecessary to search additional web-sites to integrate information or to reflect on the credibility andaccuracy of the online sources. On the other hand, Whitmire(2003) explored the relationships between epistemic beliefs andinformation seeking behaviors. The interview results revealed thatundergraduates’ epistemic beliefs might affect their choice ofthesis topics, the use of mediators during the searching process,the types of searching techniques, the evaluation of information,

and the ability to recognize authority. In addition, Whitmire(2004) applied the epistemic reflection model and the reflectivejudgment model to examine the relationships among epistemicbeliefs, reflective judgment, and information seeking behaviors.The results indicated that learners with more sophisticated episte-mic beliefs had greater ability to handle conflicting online informa-tion and to identify important online information. By usingthinking-aloud protocols, recent studies have suggested that learn-ers’ epistemic beliefs may correlate to their assessment of theInternet-based information (e.g., Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011;Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010). For instance, Mason et al. (2010)found that university students with sophisticated views concern-ing the justification of online knowledge had better performancefrom online learning.

By using questionnaires, Bråten et al. (2005) and Strømsø andBråten (2010) had assessed university students’ epistemic beliefsabout Internet-based learning activities. They extended existingresearch on epistemic beliefs and constructed a measurementwhich focused on Internet-based epistemic beliefs. Adapted fromHofer and Pintrich’s (1997) theoretical model of personal episte-mology, they developed an instrument to assess students’ beliefsrelating to Internet-based knowledge and knowing, namely theInternet-Specific Epistemological Questionnaire (ISEQ). Thethirty-six items of ISEQ were used to evaluate four hypothesizeddimensions: Certainty of Internet-based knowledge, Simplicity ofInternet-based knowledge, Source of Internet-based knowledge andJustification for Internet-based knowing, respectively.

The ISEQ was administered to undergraduates in order to clarifythe dimensions of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs. However, thestudy of Bråten et al. (2005) indicated that students’ Internet-spe-cific epistemic beliefs may be less differentiated than what was sug-gested by Hofer and Pintrich’s (1997) epistemic model, with onlytwo dimensions. The dimensions of Certainty, Simplicity and Sourcewere integrated into a new dimension, namely General Internet Epis-temology, while the Justification for Knowing was alone separated.

Strømsø and Bråten (2010) replicated the four-factor structureusing university samples to examine the relationships betweenInternet-specific epistemic beliefs and Internet-based learningactivities. Based on Bråten et al.’s (2005) ISEQ, which containedtwo factors with 18 items, the results of Strømsø and Bråten’s(2010) study yielded a three-factor solution. Two initial factorswere mixed and combined, namely Certainty and Source of Knowl-edge. The other two factors were separately identified as Structureof Knowledge, i.e. Simplicity of Knowledge identified in Bråten et al.(2005), and Justification for Knowing. In sum, there is still a need tofurther examine the dimensionality of Internet-specific epistemol-ogy particularly on other groups such as teens rather thanundergraduates.

According to Tsai (2004a), the Internet can be viewed as an epi-stemic tool due to its rich and extended information connections.The findings of Tsai’s study showed that learners with advancedepistemic beliefs may better utilize the Internet for learning andknowledge construction. Also, Tsai (2008) indicated that the Inter-net as an instruction tool may help students to reshape theirepistemology. Moreover, it was proved that eighth grade studentswith advanced epistemic beliefs had better information searchingoutcomes while encountering open-ended tasks in Web-basedenvironments (Tu, Shih, & Tsai, 2008). Bråten et al. (2005) foundthat students holding the belief that the Internet is an essentialsource of accurate facts were more skilled in searching for relevantinformation on the Internet and using the information they locatedwhen doing their course work. Particularly, the role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning wasalso investigated (Cheng et al., 2013a; Chiu et al., 2013). In conclu-sion, epistemic beliefs were viewed as a crucial factor in acquiringInternet-based knowledge and engaging in learning processes.

W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400 393

Extending the previous theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, thisstudy intended to explore the role of Internet-specific epistemicbeliefs in Internet-based learning activities.

1.2. Online academic help seeking (OAHS)

Help seeking, according to Nelson-Le Gall (1981), is intended toincrease mastery and competence by obtaining the necessaryassistance to accomplish tasks independently. Additionally, seek-ing academic help from teachers and peers is often an instrumentalbehavior for students to study in the school and to undertake theirhomework. Good learners are able to identify when they shouldget help and where to seek it, as well as how to adapt the helpreceived and how to evaluate the results of the help (Karabenick& Knapp, 1991; Nelson-Le Gall, 1981; Newman, 2000). Students’academic help seeking behaviors were extensively discussed andwere related to their motivations, learning behaviors, academicoutcomes and competence (Marchand & Skinner, 2007;Payakachat et al., 2013; Roussel, Elliot, & Feltman, 2011).

As technology-based learning has emerged, help seeking withInformation and Communications Technology (ICT) has becomeone important issue in contemporary learning environments.Student’s help seeking behaviors in the Internet-based learningenvironments are increasingly studied. For instance, it was foundthat help seeking supports in an intelligent tutoring system,namely Geometry Cognitive Tutor, positively affected students’help seeking behaviors for a long-term period, even after thesystem was removed (Aleven, McLaren, & Koedinger, 2006; Roll,Aleven, McLaren, & Koedinger, 2011).

As academic help seeking has been an issue of concern in tech-nology-based learning environments, learner- and system-relatedfactors as well as their interaction effects were examined whileexploring learners’ help seeking behaviors (Aleven, Stahl,Schworm, Fischer, & Wallace, 2003). Cheng and Tsai (2011) foundthat students’ online academic help seeking behaviors were relatedto their general self-efficacy in a Web-based learning context. Inaddition, it was reported that students’ online academic helpseeking had relations with their self-regulation and informationcommitments (Cheng et al., 2013b).

Academic help-seeking was also regarded as a learning strategy(e.g., Kitsantas & Chow, 2007; Roll et al., 2011; Schworm & Gruber,2012; Zusho & Barnett, 2011). Karabenick and Knapp (1991)proposed an academic help seeking model including formal helpseeking, informal help seeking, instrumental activities, loweringperformance aspirations, and altering goals. Furthermore, Chengand Tsai (2011) presented a modified version of Karabenick andKnapp’s (1991) framework with respect to Internet-based learning,which consisted of information searching (e.g., searching for infor-mation via the Internet to solve academic problems), formal query(e.g., emailing teachers or teaching assistants to request help), andinformal query (e.g., making online requests to peers or unknownexperts for academic help). Karabenick and Newman (2006)suggested that help seeking can be conceptualized as a form ofself-regulated learning strategy which may play an important rolein students’ performance of online academic help seeking. Chenget al. (2013b) further showed that college students intended touse simple strategies to embrace the information which theyretrieved from peers or unknown experts on the Internet (i.e.,Informal Query). As a result, online help seeking which act as aninfluential role in students’ learning activities in the Internet-basedenvironments needs further research.

1.3. Relationships between ISEB and OAHS

According to the aforementioned literature, it was indicatedthat epistemic beliefs and academic help seeking play a crucial role

in students’ learning. The relationships between these twoconstructs have been extensively explored in traditional learningcontexts (e.g., Aleven et al., 2003; Bartholomé, Stahl, Pieschl, &Bromme, 2006; Paulsen & Feldman, 2007). Aleven et al. (2003)claimed that learners’ personal orientation of help seeking mayreflect their own beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge.Paulsen and Feldman (2007) used multiple regression analysis toillustrate the conditional and interaction effects of epistemicbeliefs on college students’ help seeking behavioral strategieswhile doing their course work. The findings of their studysuggested that students with more naïve epistemic beliefs wereless likely than their counterparts to use help seeking strategies.Additionally, Bartholomé et al. (2006) found that students withmore sophisticated epistemic beliefs were inclined to show moreadequate help seeking behaviors.

In Internet-based learning environments, Strømsø and Bråten(2010) reported that students with naïve Internet-specific epistemicbeliefs, viewing the Internet as a knowledge source containing awealth of details and facts, were more likely to seek advice or helpfrom teachers and other experts. Overall, Strømsø and Bråten’s(2010) study suggested that students’ Internet-specific epistemicbeliefs about the structure of knowledge may correlate to theirself-report of help seeking in Internet-based learningenvironments. However, Strømsø and Bråten’s (2010) study is oneof a minority which have explored the relationships between stu-dents’ Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and their Internet-basedhelp seeking behaviors.

Besides the lack of study in investigating the relationshipsbetween the Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and onlineacademic help seeking behaviors, the controversial findings ofInternet-specific epistemic beliefs on online learning activities stillneed further examinations. For example, it was indicated that theeffects of sophisticated epistemic beliefs on expected learning out-comes deserve to be reconsidered in the Internet-based learningcontexts; sophisticated epistemic beliefs do not necessary resultin better learning outcomes on the Internet (Bråten et al., 2005;Chiu et al., 2013). Therefore, this study aimed to further examinethe relationships between epistemic beliefs and help seeking inInternet-specific learning environments. In addition, the relation-ships between ISEB and OAHS were specifically investigated whilehigh school students were asked to reflect their course-relatedwork in Internet-based contexts.

1.4. Research purposes

Since the constructs and measurements of ISEB and OAHS werereplicated on the high school participants, the dimensions of theISEB and OAHS questionnaires were specified with exploratoryfactor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) forevaluating the validity of these instruments. By using question-naires, the survey was conducted to collect the research data. First,Bråten et al.’s (2005) Internet-Specific Epistemic Questionnaire(ISEQ) was modified and employed to assess students’ ISEB. Accord-ing to their original hypothesis, the ISEB can be distinguished intofour identified dimensions (i.e., certainty, simplicity, source, andjustification). To thoroughly understand the meanings of ISEB, inthis study these four dimensions were renamed as Uncertainty,Complexity, Self-Source and Justification. Second, based on Chengand Tsai’s (2011) suggestion, students’ OAHS may be grouped intothree behavior patterns (i.e., information search, formal query,and informal query). Then, based on the aforementioned findings,a hypothesized model was proposed. Fig. 1 briefly illustrates theinterrelationships between students’ ISEB and their OAHS. It ispostulated that students’ OAHS may correlate to their ISEB. Further,through the path analyses with structural equation modeling (SEM)technique, this study intended to investigate the relationships

Uncertainty

Complexity

Self-Source

Justification

InformationSearch

FormalQuery

InformalQuery

Fig. 1. The hypothetical model of structural relations between ISEB and OAHS.

394 W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400

between high school students’ ISEB and OAHS while undertakingtheir course-related work on the Internet.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participants were purposively sampled from representativestudents of 10th–12th grade from six high schools in Taiwan. Twohigh schools in each area of northern, central and southern Taiwanwere contacted to get their permission and assistance to adminis-ter the survey. A total of 420 potential participants were contactedand surveyed. Finally, 342 valid questionnaires were gathered witha return rate of 81.4%. All of the participants were aged from 16 to18 years, with an average age of 17.12 (S.D. = 0.87). 59.4% of themwere male while 40.6% were female. For the participants’ gradelevels, the percentages of grade 10, grade 11 and grade 12 were30.8%, 35.7% and 32.5%, respectively. In all, 99.71% of the respon-dents indicated that their Internet usage exceeded 10 hours perweek. All of the respondents had used the Internet for their schooltasks, most of them (about 97.66%) also reported their experienceof accessing course-related information through the Internet atleast once a week.

2.2. Data analysis and procedures

In addition to the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) used forexplore the constructs of instruments. In this study, the structuralequation modeling (SEM) was also utilized to execute the confir-matory factor analysis and path analysis. Structural equation mod-eling (SEM) including measurement model and structural modelcan be defined as a combination of factor analysis and multipleregression, which is a powerful technique and has been widelyused to explore structural relations among multiple variables ineducational domain (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow,2006). Since the main purpose of this study was to examine thestructural relationships between ISEB and OAHS, SEM was admin-istered to test the structural model of these two constructs.

By utilizing the two revised instruments (i.e., the ISEB and theOAHS), 342 high school students were surveyed and respondedto the measurements. According to DeVellis’s (1991) suggestion,a sample size of a ratio of about 5–10 subjects per item is adequatein most cases of ordinary factor analysis. First, all of the partici-pants (n = 342) were randomly divided into two subsets for theEFA (n = 140) and the CFA (n = 202), respectively. Finally, the twogroups of data were again merged to explore the structural rela-tionships between students’ Internet-specific epistemic beliefsand their online academic help seeking by conducting the struc-tural equation modeling (SEM).

Prior to conducting the EFA, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericitywere examined to determine whether the sample was appropriatefor such analysis. In EFA, only those items with a factor loading ofat least 0.40 within their own factor should be retained in therefined questionnaire, and items with cross-loadings were omitted(Stevens, 1996). Moreover, CFA was employed to assure the con-struct validity of the instruments and clarify their hypothesizedstructures. In addition, to explore the relations between students’ISEB and OAHS, the path analyses and path coefficients were esti-mated through the covariance-based structural equation modeling(SEM) analysis (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bandalos & Finney, 2010). TheSEM analysis was performed with the Linear Structural Relationalmodel (LISREL version 8.80).

2.3. Instruments

In this study, two questionnaires presented with a 7-pointLikert scale from 1 ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 7 ‘‘strongly agree’’ wereadministered to investigate the high school students’ perceptionsof ISEB and OAHS while accessing online information for theircourse-related work.

2.3.1. Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs (ISEB) questionnaireBased on Hofer and Pintrich’s (1997) assertion, the Internet-

Specific Epistemic Beliefs (ISEB) instrument was composed of fourfactors that mainly assess students’ beliefs about the nature ofInternet-based knowledge (i.e., certainty and simplicity) and theprocess of knowing (i.e., source and justification). The Taiwanesehigh school students’ ISEB measurement was adapted fromBråten et al.’s (2005) ISEQ, recruiting five to eight items for eachdimension of ISEB. After formulating the initial items of the ISEB,this study consulted with two experts in the field of online learningto check the content validity of this instrument and pick 25 itemsfrom the initial survey.

Furthermore, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for ISEB wasconducted with a sample of 140 high school students. The resultsof EFA showed that the KMO measure of sampling adequacy indexhad a value of 0.76 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was signif-icant (chi-square = 1019.15, p < 0.05), indicating that the sampleswere appropriate for such analysis. To validate the ISEB survey,an exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation was per-formed to clarify its structure. The eigen values of the four factorsfrom the principle component analysis were all larger than one. Asa result, the items were grouped into four factors: Uncertainty,Complexity, Self-Source, and Justification. To determine the appro-priate items in the final version, those items with a factor loadingof less than 0.40 and with cross-loadings were omitted from themeasurement. As shown in Table 1, a total of 12 items are retainedin the final version of the ISEB instrument (shown in Table 1), andthe total variance explained is 80.49%. The Cronbach’s alpha coef-ficients for these factors are 0.89, 0.87, 0.78, 0.91, respectively, sug-gesting that they had high reliability in assessing the students’Internet-specific epistemic beliefs.

Except the items of Justification were directly scored, thereversed items of Uncertainty, Complexity, and Self-Source wereoppositely scored. That is, the higher scores on the four dimensionsof ISEB reflected more sophisticated beliefs regarding the nature ofInternet-based knowledge and the process of knowing. In otherwords, the participants with higher scores on the four dimensionswere more likely to believe that the course-related knowledgelocated on the Internet is uncertain and complicated; in addition,they tended to construct the course-related knowledge by them-selves and carefully justify the online information. A detaileddescription of these dimensions and their sample items is pre-sented below:

Table 1Factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values for the Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs (ISEB) questionnaire (n = 140).

Factor 1: Uncertainty Factor 2: Complexity Factor 3: Self-source Factor 4: Justification

Factor 1: uncertainty (UC), alpha = 0.89UC 1 0.77UC 2 0.93UC 3 0.91

Factor 2: complexity (CO), alpha = 0.87CO 1 0.86CO 2 0.90CO 3 0.83

Factor 3: self-source (SS), alpha = 0.78SS 1 0.69SS 2 0.90SS 3 0.82

Factor 4: justification (JU), alpha = 0.91JU 1 0.92JU 2 0.90JU 3 0.87% of variance 20.90 20.99 17.10 21.50

Note: Total variance explained = 80.49%; overall alpha = 0.77.

W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400 395

(1) Uncertainty: included three items which evaluated thebeliefs that the course-related knowledge found on theInternet is tentative and uncertain rather than accurateand certain. Low scores represent the view that certainknowledge and right answers concerning course-relatedissues can be found on the Internet; on the contrary, highscores indicate that students were more likely to doubt thatthe Internet is a good knowledge source which can providethem with certain knowledge about what they are studying.A sample item: The correct answer to questions related tomy course work exists on the Internet (reversed item).

(2) Complexity: consisted of three items which assessed stu-dents’ beliefs that the Internet-based knowledge relating towhat they were studying is complex rather than specificand simple. Low scores reflect students’ view that the Inter-net contains a wealth of details and facts concerning theircourse-related work. High scores indicate that students werelikely to doubt that the Internet is a good knowledge sourceof course-related information. A sample item: The Internetoffers simple and concrete knowledge about my course-related study (reversed item).

(3) Self-Source: included three items regarding the beliefs thatthe course-related knowledge is internally constructed bythe self rather than originating and transmitted directlyfrom the Internet or authoritative sources. Low scores reflectthe view that one should rely on expert authors when read-ing about Internet-based knowledge, while high scores rep-resent the view that personal judgments and interpretationsare the main sources of knowledge about course-relatedcontent on the Internet. A sample item: The Internet canprovide me with most of the knowledge that I need to suc-ceed in my courses (reversed item).

(4) Justification: consisted of three items concerning the criticalevaluation of knowledge claims encountered on the Internetthrough the use of multiple sources, reasoning, and priorknowledge. Low scores on this factor reflect the idea thatInternet-based knowledge claims can be accepted withoutcritical evaluation, while high scores represent the view thatsuch knowledge claims need to be checked against othersources, reason, and prior knowledge. A sample item: I eval-uate the logicality of the course-related knowledge that Ifind on the Internet.

2.3.2. Online academic help seeking (OAHS) questionnaireThe online academic help seeking (OAHS) questionnaire was

administered to assess students’ academic help seeking behaviorswhile doing course-related work in Internet-based environments.The OAHS with 10 items was identified as a 3-factor constructvia an exploratory factor analysis (Cheng & Tsai, 2011). These threefactors were labeled as information searching, formal query andinformal query. Since the OAHS questionnaire was used to surveyhigh school students rather than undergraduates, a series of stepssuch as consulting with high school teachers and examining thereliability and validity were undertaken to validate thismeasurement.

The EFA for OAHS with 140 participants was administered. TheKMO measure of sampling adequacy index for OAHS was 0.77, andBartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (chi-square = 766.26,p < 0.05), indicating that the samples were appropriate for suchanalysis. The EFA with varimax rotation was performed to clarifythe structure of the OAHS questionnaire. The eigenvalues of thethree factors from the principle component analysis were all largerthan one. The items with a factor loading of less than 0.40 and withcross-loadings were omitted from the measurement. The retainedfactors were labeled as: Information Search, Formal Query and Infor-mal Query. As shown in Table 2, a total of 8 items were retained inthe OAHS, and the total variance explained is 79.31%. The Cron-bach’s alpha coefficients also suggested a good reliability of thisinstrument for high school students. The reliability coefficientsfor these factors are 0.80, 0.88, and 0.82, respectively.

A detailed description of these factors and their sample itemsare presented below:

(1) Information searching: included two items assessing theextent to which students seek relevant solutions throughsearch engines (e.g., Google, Yahoo!) or expert websites(e.g., Wikipedia) when encountering academic problems. Asample item: When I have an academic problem, I will seeka relevant solution using search engines (e.g., Google,Yahoo!).

(2) Formal query: included three items measuring students’willingness to seek help from instructors or class assistantsthrough any online channel. A sample item: When I havean academic problem, I will email the instructor or classassistants to make a query.

Table 2Factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values for the online academic help seeking (OAHS) questionnaire (n = 140).

Factor 1: Information search Factor 2: Formal query Factor 3: Informal query

Factor 1: information search (IS), alpha = 0.80IS1 0.90IS 2 0.89

Factor 2: formal query (FQ), alpha = 0.88FQ 1 0.91FQ 2 0.90FQ 3 0.81

Factor 3: informal query (IQ), alpha = 0.82IQ 1 0.86IQ 2 0.82IQ 3 0.77% of variance 30.55 27.47 21.30

Note: Total variance explained = 79.31%; overall alpha = 0.83.

396 W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400

(3) Informal query: included three items evaluating students’intention to seek help from knowledgeable peers throughthe Internet or posting messages on relevant websites forquerying unknown experts’ help. A sample item: When Ihave an academic problem, I will post a message on relevantweb forums to request unknown experts’ help.

3. Results

3.1. Confirmatory factor analysis for ISEB and OAHS (n = 202)

The CFA further confirmed the construct validity and the struc-ture of the final version of ISEB and OAHS. As a result, all of themaximum likelihood parameter estimates and the t-values of the12 items on the four factors of the ISEB and the 8 items on the threefactors of the OAHS were significant (p < 0.05). The model-fit indi-ces of the ISEB (v2/df = 1.58, RMSEA = 0.05, GFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.96,NNFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98) indicated a good data-model fit and alsoconfirmed the structure of the 4-dimensional model. Similarly,the indices of the OAHS (v2/df = 1.07, RMSEA = 0.02, GFI = 0.98,NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99) also indicated a good fit andconfirmed the structure of the questionnaire (Hair, Black, Babin,Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).

3.2. Students’ responses to ISEB and OAHS

Table 3 shows the 342 students’ range, means and standarddeviations of the ISEB. The students scored highly on the Uncer-tainty factor (an average of 5.06 per item) and the Justificationfactor (an average of 5.43 per item). Their scores on the Complexityfactor (an average of 3.52 per item) were relatively lower thanthose of the other factors on the ISEB. According to Table 3, thescores on the four dimensions of ISEB were rather diverse. Thisseems to indicate that Taiwanese high school students tend to hold

Table 3Scale means and standard deviations of the ISEB and the OAHS (n = 342).

Maximum Minimum Means Standard deviations

ISEBUncertainty 7 1 5.06 1.28Complexity 7 1 3.52 1.13Self-source 6.75 1 3.71 1.16Justification 7 1 5.43 1.10

OAHSInformation search 7 1 5.62 1.31Formal query 7 1 2.86 1.46Informal query 7 1 3.70 1.61

relatively sophisticated epistemic beliefs of justification for Inter-net-based knowing.

Furthermore, Table 3 also shows the 342 students’ range,average item scores and the standard deviations of the threefactors of the OAHS. The students reported more agreement onthe Information Search factors (an average of 5.62 per item), andthe Informal Query (an average of 3.70 per item). The results indi-cated that high school students in Taiwan are relatively moreinclined to search for information than to make queries to solveacademic difficulties through Internet channels. Additionally, thesestudents showed a greater tendency to ask knowledgeable peers orunknown experts for help (Informal Query) than to ask theirinstructors or class assistants for course-related help through theInternet (Formal Query).

3.3. Relations between students’ ISEB and OAHS

To understand the relations between students’ ISEB and OAHS,Pearson correlation analyses of students’ responses on the ISEB andthe OAHS were performed. As shown in Table 4, Uncertainty is neg-atively related to Formal Query (r = �0.22, p < 0.05) and InformalQuery (r = �0.16, p < 0.05). In addition, Complexity and Self-Sourceare negatively associated with all factors of the OAHS. On the otherhand, Justification positively relates to the Information Search(r = 0.39, p < 0.05) and the Informal Query (r = 0.18, p < 0.05) factors.

According to correlation analyses, it was indicated that studentswith more sophisticated views about the Uncertainty of Internet-based knowledge seemed not to employ formal and informal helpseeking strategies. Furthermore, students who held more sophisti-cated beliefs about the Complexity and Self-Source of Internet-basedknowledge tended not to employ online channels for solving aca-demic problems. In contrast, students with more sophisticatedbeliefs about the justification for knowing were inclined to employInformation Search and Informal Query help seeking approaches.

Comparing with Bråten et al.’s (2005) finding, general Internetepistemology (i.e., certainty, simplicity and source) was relatedto Internet-based information searching and communication (with

Table 4Correlations between factors of the ISEB and the OAHS (n = 342).

OAHS

ISEB Information search Formal query Informal query

Uncertainty 0.01 �0.22* �0.16*

Complexity �0.34* �0.27* �0.30*

Self-source �0.21* �0.23* �0.25*

Justification 0.39* 0.09 0.18*

* p < 0.05.

W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400 397

a correlation coefficients ranging from 0.2 to 0.34). In Strømsø &Bråten’s (2010) study, it was reported that structure (i.e., simplic-ity) was correlated to Internet search (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) and helpseeking (r = 0.31, p < 0.01); meanwhile, justification for knowingwas related to Internet-based help seeking (r = 0.23, p < 0.05). Inconclusion, the relationships between epistemic beliefs and helpseeking can be identified through the correlation analyses ofprevious and present studies.

3.4. Path analyses with SEM technique

In the stage of SEM analysis, path analysis was employed toassess the structural model that specified the relations amongthe latent constructs. The SEM path analysis results are presentedin Table 5. The results of SEM report a v2 of 287.01, a df of 152(p < 0.001), a v2/df of 1.88, a GFI of 0.92, an AGFI of 0.90, an RMSEAof 0.05, an NFI of 0.93, and a CFI of 0.96. The indices exhibit anacceptable fitness in terms of the structural model proposed in thisstudy (Hair et al., 2006; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004).

Fig. 2 shows the summary of the maximum likelihood parame-ter estimates (completed standard coefficients) and the signifi-cance of the t-values with asterisks for the final structural model.It is important to note that the paths without statistical signifi-cance are not presented in Fig. 2. All twelve paths are specifiedin the hypothetical model (Fig. 1); however, eight paths are foundto be statistically significant (Fig. 2). The statistically significantpositive relationships are shown by solid lines, and the statisticallysignificant negative relationships are presented by dotted lines. Inthe model, Complexity has a significantly negative relation withInformation Search. Uncertainty and Complexity are significantlyrelated to Formal Query. Uncertainty, Complexity, and Self-Sourcehave significant relationships with Informal Query. In addition,

Table 5Measures of model fit and reported values for the structural model (n = 342).

Fit index Recommendedvalues

Model values

v2 (Chi-square) p P 0.05 287.01(p < 0.001)

v2/df 63 1.88(df = 152)

Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) P0.90 0.92Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) P0.90 0.90Root-mean-square error of

approximation (RMSEA)60.08 0.05

Normed-fit index (NFI) P0.90 0.93Comparative-fit index (CFI) P0.90 0.96

Uncertainty

Complexity

Self-Source

Justification

InformationSearch

FormalQuery

InformalQuery

-

0.38*

-

0.25*

0.17*-0.20*

-0.14*

-0.24*

-0.10*

0.14*

Fig. 2. The final model of structural relations between ISEB and OAHS. The dottedline represents a negative prediction. Note: �p < 0.05.

Justification has positive correlations with both Information Searchand Informal Query.

The results of the path analysis indicated that students consid-ered course-related knowledge located on the Internet to be anaccumulation of specific facts (i.e., holding naïve beliefs in Com-plexity), and those who viewed that such knowledge needs to bechecked against other sources (i.e., possessing sophisticated beliefsin Justification) were more likely to use the Information Search helpseeking strategy in web-based learning environments. On the otherhand, students who were more oriented to believe in the Internetas an essential source of certain truth and an accumulation of spe-cific facts about course-related content (i.e., having naïve beliefsregarding Uncertainty and Complexity) were more likely to employthe Formal Query online academic help seeking strategy. Moreover,the high school students who were inclined to believe that course-related knowledge existed on the Internet were tentative, relative,and complex, and those who were less inclined to judge theaccuracy of web information by reasoning or drawing on otherknowledge sources, were less likely to use the Informal Query helpseeking strategy. In other words, except for sophisticated beliefs inJustification, those students with advanced epistemic beliefs ofUncertainty, Complexity and Self-Source were less willing to usethe Informal Query when they encountered academic difficulties.

4. Discussion

The present research adds to our understanding of the role ofpersonal epistemology in Internet-based environments by provid-ing new evidence regarding the relationships between high schoolstudents’ Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs (ISEB) and their self-report of online academic help seeking (OAHS). Through explor-atory and confirmatory factor analyses, it was found that the twoinstruments were sufficiently reliable for investigating students’perceptions of ISEB and their OAHS. In accordance with Alevenet al.’s (2003) argument, it was reported that learners’ epistemicbeliefs are related to their help-seeking in interactive learningenvironments, this study also indicated that high school students’ISEB are related to three OAHS strategies while searching for Inter-net-based information for course-related purposes.

4.1. The validation of the instruments

This study extended the existing research on personal episte-mology by adopting a measure that specifically focused on episte-mic beliefs about Internet-based knowledge and knowing. Theresults of the EFA and CFA indicated that the ISEB instrumentrevised in this study has satisfactory validity and reliability. Inaddition, the results of EFA and CFA indicated that the dimension-ality of Internet-specific personal epistemology could be separatedinto four categories mostly aligned with Hofer and Pintrich’s(1997) theoretical model of epistemology: the nature of knowledge(i.e., certainty, simplicity) and the process of knowing (i.e., source,justification). The measured items employed in the current studyadequately loaded on their initially presumed dimensions. Theacceptable reliability and construct validity suggested that the ISEBquestionnaire is appropriate for assessing high school students’beliefs regarding Internet-based knowledge and knowing.

Furthermore, this study utilized the OAHS questionnaire devel-oped by Cheng and Tsai (2011) for evaluating high school students’OAHS. The appropriate construct validity and reliability wereconsistent with Cheng and Tsai’s findings, suggesting that thisquestionnaire can be replicated with high school groups.

Cheng and Tsai (2011) and Cheng et al. (2013b) have indicatedthat college students are more inclined to use Information Search astheir academic help seeking strategy rather than to use Formal

398 W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400

Query and Informal Query through online channels. In this study, itwas also revealed that high school students had a high tendency toseek help through electronic sources (i.e., Information Search). Thismay be due to the fact that the search engines (e.g., Google,Yahoo!) or expert websites (e.g., Wikipedia, Encyclopedia) providepersonalized and just in time help. It was easier for students to usekeywords to search for academic information and to view relevantquestions that it was to discuss them online. This finding also com-plies with Cheng et al.’s (2013b) perspective that students’ onlinehelp seeking strategies relating to query behaviors should be fur-ther emphasized. That is, there is a need to let students realizethe advantages of querying their teachers or peers.

In addition to the highest tendency of the Information Searchstrategy, these high school students were more inclined to askknowledgeable peers or unknown experts for help (i.e., InformalQuery) than to ask their teachers for assistance through the Inter-net (i.e., Formal Query). This is a noteworthy finding which contra-dicts a previous study indicating that university students mostlyseek help from formal sources but not from their peers (Chenget al., 2013b). Thus, further investigations are suggested to explorethe grade-related differences (high school students vs. undergrad-uates) in formal and informal academic help seeking behaviors.

4.2. The structural relationships between the ISEB and the OAHS

After the questionnaires were validated, the structural relation-ships between the participants’ Internet-specific epistemic beliefsand their online academic help seeking were explored via SEManalysis. The results of the SEM analysis indicated that differentISEB dimensions held by students may lead to various types ofOAHS for dealing with their school work. To clearly illustrate theSEM results of the final model, Table 6 presents a summary ofthe structural relationships between the ISEB and the OAHS. Asshown in Table 6, the findings imply that students with sophisti-cated epistemic beliefs about Internet-based Justification tend touse the Information Search strategy. However, students who holdsophisticated epistemic beliefs regarding the Complexity of Inter-net-based knowledge are less likely to use the Information Searchstrategy to deal with course-related problems. Moreover, studentswho hold sophisticated epistemic beliefs about the Uncertainty andComplexity of Internet-based knowledge are less willing to use theFormal Query strategy for course-related advice or academic help.The results also indicate that students with advanced beliefs thatInternet-based knowledge claims need to be checked against othersources, namely Justification for Internet-based knowing, are report-edly more likely to query peers or unknown experts online foracademic help. Nevertheless, students with sophisticated episte-mic beliefs about Uncertainty, Complexity and Self-Source of Inter-net-based knowledge are inclined not to employ the InformalQuery strategy when undertaking their course-related work online.

Specifically, in spite of Justification for Internet-based knowingbeing positively related to the Information Search and InformalQuery strategies of the OAHS, Uncertainty, Complexity andSelf-Source of Internet-based knowledge have negative relationships

Table 6The structural relationships between the ISEB and the OAHS.

ISEB OAHS

Information Search Formal Query Informal Query

Uncertainty –* –*

Complexity –* –* –*

Self-source –*

Justification +* +*

* p < 0.05.

with OAHS. These findings cannot comply with previous research.For example, Aleven et al. (2003) suggested that learners withmore sophisticated epistemic beliefs could positively influencehelp-seeking activities. Recently, a number of studies providedevidence showing that students with more sophisticated epistemicbeliefs had more intention to adopt help seeking behaviors(Bartholomé et al., 2006; Paulsen & Feldman, 2007). However,while in an Internet-based rather than a traditional learningcontext, it was indicated that students’ sophisticated epistemicbeliefs were negatively correlated to Internet search and helpseeking (Strømsø & Bråten, 2010). Strømsø and Bråten’s (2010)finding is consistent with the results of this study, suggesting thatcompared to traditional contexts, the relationships betweenepistemic beliefs and help seeking may have different results inInternet-based learning environments.

In other words, students with naïve beliefs, possessing the viewthat the Internet is an essential source of certain (i.e., true, abso-lute), simple (i.e., detailed, factual), and original (i.e., externalauthority) knowledge about course-related content, were lesslikely to doubt the accuracy of Internet-based knowledge and werewilling to use the Internet for seeking academic help. The possibleexplanation is that students holding naïve epistemic beliefs aboutUncertainty, Complexity, and Self-Source may place complete reli-ance on the Internet and regard it as a vital tool to seek academichelp. On the contrary, students with sophisticated beliefs regardingInternet-based knowledge may doubt the course-related informa-tion located on the Internet; thus, instead of seeking help on theInternet, they may try to get academic help by checking thetextbooks and other sources or investigating the facts on theirown when they encounter problems in the online environments.

In addition, this study further identified that high school stu-dents with more sophisticated beliefs concerning Justification forInternet-based knowing were more likely to conduct InformationSearch and Informal Query online help seeking behaviors to dealwith their academic problems. This finding is similar to Tu et al.’s(2008) perspectives indicating that those Internet users with moreadvanced epistemic beliefs may have a tendency to purposefullyfilter online information. Also, Tsai (2004b) indicated that theadvanced epistemic beliefs of Web users could lead them todevelop sophisticated standards for evaluating online informationand proper strategies for navigating on the Web. That is, whileencountering course-related problems, high school students’advanced epistemic beliefs regarding Internet-based knowingmay stimulate them to navigate more Websites for academic infor-mation and to get help from their peers via informal queries inInternet-based learning environments.

4.3. Implications for educational practice

After revising the measurements, the ISEB questionnaire vali-dated in this study may be regarded as an adequate instrument.Researchers and educators may utilize this instrument to evaluatehigh school students’ conceptions regarding Internet-based knowl-edge and knowing. According to the results of this study, students’epistemic beliefs may correlate to their inquiry activity such assearching for and collecting data on the Internet. It is necessaryfor teachers to be aware of whether students correctly judge theaccuracy and appropriateness of the materials located on the web-sites. The results of analyses of the Internet-specific epistemicbeliefs model could be a potential and useful framework for furtherresearchers and instructors to specify how their students evaluateInternet-based learning environments.

Since the exploration of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs isstill in its early stage, this study attempted to investigate therelationships between Internet-specific epistemic beliefs andhelp-seeking strategies in an open-ended online learning context.

W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400 399

From the results of the SEM analysis it was suggested that highschool students’ justification for Internet-based knowing shouldbe reinforced to increase their online help seeking behaviorsincluding the Information Search and Informal Query strategies.With respect to those students with naïve beliefs about Internet-based knowledge, since they rely heavily on Internet-basedinformation, there is a need to teach them how to better evaluatethe Internet-based knowledge in order to successfully seek onlineacademic help. As regards those students with sophisticatedepistemic beliefs relating to the Uncertainty, Complexity andSelf-Source of Internet-based knowledge, encouragement is neededto inspire them to take the advantage of online help seeking.

4.4. Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First,all of the students’ epistemic beliefs and online help seekingbehaviors were measured with self-report instruments whichmay not capture valid data from the dynamic learning processes.In order to better capture students’ ISEB and OAHS, it might behelpful to supplement self-report measures with the think-aloudprotocol and trace data (e.g., log files) of students’ course-relatedactivities on the Internet. From the viewpoint of methodology,observations or videos are also suitable measurements of ISEBand OAHS which can explicitly record the details of learningactivities.

Second, the results of the current study need to be replicatedwith different sample groups. As the findings were gathered fromhigh school students, there is a need to repeat this study withdifferent groups such as elementary and middle school students.Further studies may examine whether participants with variousbackgrounds may have different way of evaluating Internet-basedknowledge.

Finally, a small number of participants were surveyed from alimited sample base. In addition, the participants were selectedconveniently rather than sampled randomly. These two issuesmay cause a limitation relating to the generalization ability ofthe study results.

5. Conclusions

This study attempted to facilitate future research and practicalapplications involving Internet-based learning environments. Byutilizing the Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs (ISEB) surveywhich assessed four dimensions relating to high school students’perceptions of Internet-based knowledge, and the Online AcademicHelp Seeking (OAHS) questionnaire which considered three dimen-sions of preferred help seeking strategies, this study provided fur-ther insights into an integrated theoretical model combined withepistemic beliefs and academic help seeking behaviors. Particu-larly, this theoretical model was examined in an Internet-basedrather than in a traditional learning environment.

This study responded to Aleven et al.’s (2003) call for anadvance in theoretical specifications and further hypotheses onhow epistemic beliefs might facilitate help seeking. From under-standing the relationships between these two constructs, instruc-tors may better know how to stimulate learners’ help seekingbehaviors by inspiring their epistemic beliefs while learning inonline environments on their own.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the National Science Council,Taiwan, under grant number NSC 100-2511-S-011-004-MY3 andNSC 101-2628-S-011-001-MY3.

References

Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Toward meta-cognitivetutoring: A model of help-seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal ofArtificial Intelligence and Education, 16, 101–128.

Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. M. (2003). Help seekingand help design in interactive learning environments. Review of EducationalResearch, 73, 277–320.

Bartholomé, T., Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). What matters in help-seeking? A study of help effectiveness and learner-related factors. Computers inHuman Behavior, 22, 113–129.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory.In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitativemethods in the social sciences (pp. 93–114). NY: Routledge.

Bråten, I., Gil, L., Strømsø, H. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009). Personal epistemologyacross cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students’epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12,529–560.

Bråten, I. (2008). Personal epistemology, understanding of multiple texts, andlearning within Internet technologies. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge,and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 351–376). NewYork, NY: Springer.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documentsabout global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about thenature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38, 635–657.

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The relationship betweenInternet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within Internettechnologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 141–171.

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated studentsalways better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in theunderstanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 33, 814–840.

Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge.Educational Psychological Review, 13, 385–418.

Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013a). The role of Internet-specific epistemicbeliefs and self-regulation in high school students’ online academic helpseeking: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of EducationalComputing Research, 48, 469–489.

Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013b). University students’ online academichelp seeking: The role of self-regulation and information commitments. Internetand Higher Education, 16, 70–77.

Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). An investigation of Taiwan University students’perceptions of online academic help seeking, and their web-based learning self-efficacy. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 150–157.

Chiu, Y. L., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Internet-specific epistemic beliefs andself-regulated learning in online academic information searching. Metacognitionand Learning, 8, 235–260.

Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, L., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes inepistemological beliefs in elementary science students. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 29, 186–204.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Duell, O. K., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of people’s beliefs aboutknowledge and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 419–449.

Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemicbeliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning andInstruction, 25, 49–61.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the Internet age:Examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30,22–26.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personalepistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning andteaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–383.

Hofer, B. K. (2004a). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process:Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–56.

Hofer, B. K. (2004b). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differingclassroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 129–163.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories:Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review ofEducational Research, 67, 88–140.

Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and Internet-specificepistemic beliefs on source evaluations during web search for medical information:An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 83–97.

Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1991). Relationship of academic help seeking to theuse of learning strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior incollege students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 221–230.

Karabenick, S. A., & Moosa, S. (2005). Culture and personal epistemology: U.S. andMiddle Eastern students’ beliefs about scientific knowledge and knowing. SocialPsychology of Education, 8, 375–393.

400 W.-C. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 36 (2014) 391–400

Karabenick, S. A., & Newman, R. S. (2006). Help seeking in academic setting: Goals,groups and contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kitsantas, A., & Chow, A. (2007). College students’ perceived threat and preferencefor seeking help in traditional, distributed and distance learning environments.Computers & Education, 48, 383–395.

Liang, J. C., Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). The relations between scientificepistemological beliefs and approaches to learning science among science-major undergraduates in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19, 43–59.

Marchand, G., & Skinner, E. A. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children’s academichelp-seeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65–82.

Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneousreflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searchingand their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137–151.

Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the web to learn about acontroversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38,607–633.

Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context ofinformation searching on the Web. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledgeand beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377–404). NewYork: Springer.

Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Help seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill inchildren. Development Review, 1, 224–246.

Newman, R. S. (2000). Social influences on the development of children’s adaptivehelp seeking: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Developmental Review, 20,350–404.

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2007). The conditional and interaction effects ofepistemological beliefs on the self-regulated learning of college students:Cognitive and behavioral strategies. Research in Higher Education, 48, 353–401.

Payakachat, N., Gubbins, P. O., Ragland, D., Norman, S. E., Flowers, S. K., Stowe, C. D.,et al. (2013). Academic help-seeking behavior among student pharmacists.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 7(1), 7.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research onpersonal epistemologies. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personalepistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing(pp. 103–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students’help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoringsystem. Learning and Instruction, 21, 267–280.

Roussel, P., Elliot, A. J., & Feltman, R. (2011). The influence of achievement goals andsocial goals on help-seeking from peers in an academic context. Learning andInstruction, 21(3), 394–402.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge oncomprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.

Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reportingstructural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: Areview. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equationmodeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NY: Routledge.

Schworm, S., & Gruber, H. (2012). E-Learning in universities: Supporting help-seeking processes by instructional prompts. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 43, 272–281.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd Ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of Internet-based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 91–111.

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specificepistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learningand Instruction, 18, 513–527.

Tsai, C. C. (2004a). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: The use of Internet asan ‘‘epistemological’’ tool for instruction. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 35, 525–536.

Tsai, C. C. (2004b). Information commitments in web-based learning environments.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105–112.

Tsai, C. C., Ho, H. N., Liang, J. C., & Lin, H. M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs,conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among highschool students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757–769.

Tsai, C. C. (2008). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development ofepistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing,knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures(pp. 273–285). New York: Springer.

Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2012). Developing a survey for assessingpreferences in constructivist context-aware ubiquitous learning environments.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 250–264.

Tu, Y. W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategies andoutcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs.Computers & Education, 51, 1142–1153.

Whitmire, E. (2003). Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behaviorof undergraduates. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 127–142.

Whitmire, E. (2004). The relationship between undergraduates’ epistemologicalbeliefs, reflective judgment, and their information-seeking behavior.Information Processing and Management, 40, 97–111.

Zusho, A., & Barnett, P. A. (2011). Personal and contextual determinants ofethnically diverse female high school students’ patterns of academic helpseeking and help avoidance in English and mathematics. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 36, 152–164.