914639

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020914639SAGE OpenNing et al.

Original Research

SAGE Open

Influence of Teacher Educators on the

January-March 2020: 1­–14
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020914639
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914639

Development of Prospective Teachers’ journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Personal Epistemology and Tolerance

Bo Ning1 , Irfan Ahmed Rind2,3 ,

and Muhammad Mujtaba Asad2

Abstract
This article examines the influence of teacher educators (TEs) on the development of epistemology and tolerance among
the prospective teachers (PTs) studying in a newly introduced 4-year Bachelor of Education (BEd) program offered in the
Departments of Education of Universities (DoEUs) and Government Colleges of Education (GCEs) in Pakistan. The new
BEd is part of United States Agency for International Development (USAID)–led teacher education reforms in Pakistan to
curtail the teaching of extremist values that are implicated in breeding extremism. The stated policies and recommended
practices of the program are based on the principles of constructivism, critical thinking, creativity, and effective communication,
which are expected to shape the PTs’ ways to conceptualize knowledge and knowing, and ultimately their attitude to
different social dimensions. Considering that the aforementioned reforms have not focused on the development of the
TEs, it is worth examining how the traditionally trained TEs implement this new program, and to what extent they are
shaping the epistemology and attitude of the PTs. Using a descriptive quantitative pre–post intervention design, this study
collected data on the epistemic and tolerance development of PTs of a DoEU and a GCE. Data were also collected on TEs’
epistemology, tolerance, teacher–students interactions, and teaching strategies. The analysis highlights a significant relation
of TEs’ epistemology and tolerance on their teaching strategies as well as on the development of the PTs’ epistemology and
tolerance.

Keywords
pre-service teacher education, prospective teachers, teacher educators, epistemology, and tolerance

Introduction
This study is part of a larger research project funded by the
Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan to exam-
ine the influence of United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)–led teacher education reforms in
Pakistan. This article is based on one part of the abovemen-
tioned project. It specifically examines the influence of
teacher educators (TEs) on the development of personal epis-
temology and tolerance of the prospective teachers (PTs)
toward different social dimensions during their 1½-year
study at a newly introduced Bachelor of Education (BEd)
program. It is a comparative study of a Department of
Education of Universities (DoEU) and a Government College
of Education (GCE) where this BEd program is offered.
In the context of Pakistan, prior research highlights the
high level of intolerance of the masses toward other religions
(Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], 2009), ethnicities
(Khan, 2017), women’s education (Shaukat et al., 2014), and
women’s employability (Burki, 2017). This intolerant
attitude was mainly flourished in the 1980s when the radical
changes were introduced in the traditional as well as reli-
gious education of Pakistan (Awan, 2017). The religious and
social fundamentalist values were embedded in the educa-
tional policies, curricula, textbooks, and teaching, which
“created intolerant worldviews among students” (Winthrop
& Graff, 2010, p. 2). In other words, these values reshaped
the ways students understand the nature and sources of real-
ity—known as personal epistemology.
Individuals’ personal epistemology is linked with their
learning, teaching, the way they see others, and their opin-
ions (Hofer, 2000, 2001; Holma & Hyytinen, 2015;
1
Shanghai Normal University, China
2
Sukkur IBA University, Pakistan
3
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Irfan Ahmed Rind, Department of Education, Sukkur IBA University,
Airport Road, Sukkur 65200, Pakistan.
Email: irfan.rind@iba-suk.edu.pk

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
Schommer, 1990). An individual’s personal epistemology
can fall on a spectrum having epistemologically naïve on
one end and epistemologically sophisticated on another
(Schommer-Aikins & Hutter, 2002). Research suggests that
epistemologically sophisticated individuals show a great
level of tolerance toward different social dimensions as com-
pared with epistemologically naïve (Adhyatm, 2015).
A thorough review of different documents related to BEd
reveals that the program is based on the principles of con-
structivism, critical thinking, creativity, and effective commu-
nication (HEC, 2012; USAID–United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2006). It is
expected that if TEs effectively implement these principles in
their practices, they may produce epistemologically sophisti-
cated PTs, who should be more tolerant and less extreme in
their attitudes toward other religions, ethnicities, and wom-
en’s education and employability. This study attempts to
examine the development of epistemology and tolerance of
PTs studying in a DoEU and a GCE, and the relative influence
of TEs in this process.
Why Comparing DoEUs and GCEs?
DoEUs and GCEs are significantly different from one
another in terms of TEs, PTs, and resources. DoEUs usually
attract highly qualified TEs, possessing postgraduate qualifi-
cations from developed countries. The DoEUs offer com-
petitive salary packages, congenial environment, continuous
professional development opportunities, and clear career
progression to attract highly qualified TEs, while GCEs have
a limited budget, limited resources on-site, and hardly any
professional development opportunities for the TEs. The
salaries are also comparatively low at the latter. Thus, with
all these limitations, the GCEs attract local graduates and/or
those who fail to get a place at any DoEU.
Likewise, DoEUs attract competent students, who have to
meet strict admission requirements. The candidate must have
an aggregate score of a minimum 50% (in some cases 60%)
in their higher secondary examinations and must also dem-
onstrate a competitive score in the university entrance test.
Whereas, GCEs accept applications of those who even
secured 40% in their higher secondary examination. There is
usually no admission test as well. Students simply pay the
fees (which is comparatively lower than the fees of DoEU
for the exact same program) to enroll.
DoEUs have Quality Assurance Cell (QEC), which is
responsible to ensure the quality of content and delivery of
the program. Students are provided an opportunity to give
feedback on their content of the courses and teaching of TEs
at the end of every semester. The QEC ensures that students
have attended 90% of the classes, and TEs have covered at
least 75% of the course specified in the course outlines
before conducting examinations. The QEC also ranks TEs on
their innovative teaching strategies, and gives them feedback
or arrange professional development training as per the need.
However, there is no such mechanism in the GCEs. In con-
clusion, BEd is being offered in two different contexts by
two different types of TEs within two different monitoring
and evaluation regimes. Thus, this research has generated
interesting data on PTs’ development of epistemology and
tolerance while covering both of the aforementioned
domains.
Background of the Study
Globally, extremism has become a major concern as it links
to terrorism and religious fundamentalism (Davies, 2008).
Pakistan, particularly, faces this problem since the 1980s
when General Zia, a self-imposed dictator, Islamized the
state in an attempt to legitimize his military regime, thus pro-
moted religious fundamentalism in all aspects of life (Shams,
2016). The religious fundamentalism was reinforced through
education by amending education policies, curricula, and
teacher education, and establishing religious schools. The
fundamentalist discourse consistently used in government
policies, state-controlled media, political speeches, religious
sermons, curricula, and teachers’ instructions in the public
sector and religious schools shaped the epistemology of the
masses, particularly young minds. Religious authority and
fixity of knowledge were highly promoted with little or no
space for critical and analytical thinking (Awan, 2012). With
this approach, the military regime gained its political grounds
at home and used highly motivated young students from reli-
gious schools to implement its foreign policies (Fair, 2015).
Since 9/11, the United States and Pakistan have devel-
oped a mutual interest in strengthening the education system
of Pakistan that would curtail the teaching of extremist val-
ues that are implicated in breeding extremism. Realizing the
important role teachers play in bringing a sustainable social
change, special attention was paid on the teacher education
reforms. In 2009, USAID launched a $75 million 5-year Pre-
Service Teacher Education Program (Pre-STEP). The basic
objective of Pre-STEP was to implement BEd which is
loaded with teaching methods that may instill democratic
attitudes and behaviors among PTs. One of the key features
of the Pre-STEP program was to design and implement BEd
in 22 DoEUs and 75 GCEs in 2012.
Here it is important to mention that the stated motives of
the international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
and funding agencies have been challenged with the argu-
ments that these organizations mostly have hidden agendas
(Bruckner, 2017; Cohen, 2003; Moss et al., 2005; Varga,
2014). However, this aspect of USAID reform initiatives is
beyond the scope of this research and requires a thorough
investigation. This research specifically examines the
stated policies and recommended practices of the BEd, and
evaluates the extent to which these policies and practices
are implemented by TEs in the DoEUs and GCEs, and the
way these have influenced the PTs’ epistemologies and
attitudes.
Ning et al. 3
Features of the BEd Program
A thorough review of the recommended curriculum of BEd
reveals that the program is based on four principles, that is,
constructivism, critical thinking, creativity, and effective
communication, which are embedded in all the proposed
teaching, learning, and assessment strategies of the program
(HEC, 2012). The program strongly advocates learner-cen-
tered pedagogies and promotes strategies like argumentation,
collaboration, cooperation, analyzation, reasoning, reflective
skills, inquiry-based learning, problem-based teaching,
experimentation, action research, acceptance of diversity,
and so on (USAID, 2010). The traditional authoritarian atti-
tude, corporal punishment, and rote memorization are por-
trayed as a social evil to be avoided. The program cherishes
diversity, acceptability, inclusion, and multiplism. It highly
emphasizes that TEs must use the learner-centered approach
in teaching different courses of this program. It also highly
emphasizes that TEs must embed the principles of construc-
tivism, critical thinking, creativity, and effective communi-
cation in their overall teaching strategies, and ensure that
these principles are implanted in PTs’ attitudes and practices.
With these policies and practices, it was hypothesized that if
the stated principles and recommended strategies of the BEd
are implemented properly and effectively, it would produce
highly motivated, competent, mindful, and action-oriented
professionals, who would have a multiplistic view to criti-
cally analyze content presented to them (USAID, 2010). The
essential ingredients to effectively implement the program
includes highly qualified trained and motivated TEs, interac-
tive teaching–learning environment, availability of resources
including science labs, adjacent schools for practicum, and
most importantly administrative willingness. This study spe-
cifically focuses on the quality of TEs and the way they may
influence the development of PTs’ epistemology and
tolerance.
Literature Review
Extremism, Tolerance, and Education
Research suggests a strong correlation between education
and extremism (Bajoria, 2009; Koehler, 2016). To under-
stand this relation, we need to understand extremism. Tutu
(in Davies, 2009) portrays an extremist as someone who
holds a position where his or her ideas are treated as exclu-
sive, and that there is no room for a different point of view,
and that this person tries to impose his or her ideas on others
by means of violence. And when a group adopts this behav-
ior by harming the functioning of the democratic order, the
extremism starts to gain a political end (Sieckelinck et al.,
2006). Pape (2006) argues that extremism is usually con-
fused with religion. He argues that “religion is rarely the root
cause of extremism, although it is often used as a tool by
terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts for
their cause” (in Davies, 2008, p. 2).
Extremism, however, is often aligned with fundamental-
ism, which does have a religious base. Here, issues arise over
literal interpretations of scriptures and the sexism, racism,
and homophobia that may result from such readings. Studies
show that the stronger the religious conviction, the less toler-
ant individuals are likely to be toward, for example, gays and
lesbians (Kahn, 2006). However, not all fundamentalists are
extremists or terrorists, but fundamentalism may predispose
adherents to extreme positions (Davies, 2009).
Individuals who hold extreme positions show less toler-
ance (Adhyatm, 2015). Tolerance by definition implies supe-
riority: one only tolerates things one does not like or that one
disapproves of. Such individuals firmly believe in the notion
that there is one right answer, truth or path, and that there are
no alternatives. In dealing with alternatives, they either react
violently or show intolerance (Barnes, 2006; Davies, 2008).
Individuals, who hold the extreme position, whether on reli-
gious beliefs, cultural practices, or political ideas, usually
lack an instinct to ask questions or reflect on their beliefs
(Crabtree, 2012). This is linked to the ways in which their
epistemological beliefs were constructed or are shaped.
Breton et al. (2002) argue that people typically rely on
authoritative knowledge of other people. Giving an example
from daily life, Breton et al. (2002) say that people rely on
the authoritative knowledge of professionals like doctors,
lawyers, and many others. But when it comes to history, reli-
gion, ethics, society, and what is right and wrong, some peo-
ple keep a stronghold of past authoritative assertions and
reinforce them by avoiding questioning or reflecting on their
knowledge and understanding, while others develop tenden-
cies to think, reflect, and react to their previous knowledge
and understanding.
These tendencies are developed through the kind of edu-
cation individuals get and the way they get it (Bajoria, 2009;
Barnes, 2006; Davies, 2008, 2009; Koehler, 2016). Davies
(2009) claims that formal education in most of the countries
with a high rate of extremism does little to develop individu-
als’ tendencies to think, reflect, and react. The focus of edu-
cation in such countries is to bend the minds of masses by
limiting their ways of understanding and imposing politi-
cally informed knowledge with an authoritative approach.
Consequently, uncritical and uncreative minds are produced
who believe in a single truth and have uncritical respect for a
belief (Davies, 2009).
Personal Epistemology
“What is knowledge” and “how it is acquired” (personal
epistemology) are important questions that shape the ideas
and actions of individuals. Therefore, understanding the
ways in which individuals perceive the nature of knowledge
and “knowing” has become the center of attention in devel-
opmental psychology research. The study of epistemology
may include the beliefs about the certainty of knowledge, the
source of knowledge, the justification of knowledge, the
4 SAGE Open
acquisition of knowledge, and/or the structure of knowledge,
depending on the theory (Hofer, 2000; Kuhn et al., 2000;
Perry, 1970; Schommer, 1990). In the field of education,
research on personal epistemology got its place for two main
reasons. First, it focuses on the development of students’ cre-
ative and critical thinking (Bok, 2009), which, research sug-
gests, are linked with students’ views of knowledge and
knowing (Lucas & Tan, 2013). Second, based on their find-
ings, the researchers on personal epistemology offer differ-
ent pedagogical recommendations for a better outcome, thus
linking the research with teaching (Brew & Jewell, 2012).
William Perry (1970) pioneered the research on personal
epistemology while examining the ways in which Harvard
freshmen grow intellectually and ethically throughout their
graduating years. Based on lengthy longitudinal interviews,
Perry (1970) proposed a unidimensional developmental the-
ory about college students’ beliefs regarding the nature of
knowledge and the source of knowledge. According to Perry,
“students’ view of knowledge evolves from naive egocen-
trism, absolutism and dualism towards a relativist view of
knowledge” (in Holma & Hyytinen, 2015, p. 335). Based on
Perry’s work, Marlene Schommer conceptualized personal
epistemology as a system of independent beliefs that develop
more-or-less independently. She proposed four dimensions
of knowledge acquisition: (a) structure of knowledge (rang-
ing from isolated bits and pieces to integrated concepts), (b)
stability of knowledge (ranging from absolute to continually
changing), (c) speed of knowledge (ranging from quick all-
or-none to gradual), and (d) ability to learn knowledge (rang-
ing from learning is innately fixed to taming with time and
experiences). Schommer argues that it is wrong to simply
assume that all these beliefs are in synchronization and may
develop at the same rate (Schommer-Aikins & Hutter, 2002).
Following this approach, Schommer developed a 63-item
Epistemology Belief Questionnaire (EBQ) that she validated
with college students (Schommer et al., 1992), high school
students (Schommer, 1993), and adults (Schommer, 1998).
Although some studies fail to replicate Schommer’s factor
structure with factor item subsets (Kardash & Howell, 2000),
some studies fail on their attempt to use the individual items
as a basis for the factors (Hofer, 1997), and even some
attempted to develop new tools on their disagreement with
Schommer’s proposed dimensions of epistemology (Hofer,
1997), the EBQ remains the primarily written assessment of
personal epistemology and widely used.
The Role of the Teacher in Developing Learners’
Epistemology
Teachers’ beliefs on teaching and their roles in the class-
rooms have been widely studied (Rind, 2016; Prosser et al.,
1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Although different clas-
sifications are used in each study, they all conceptualize
teaching at a spectrum, with teaching as “helping students
develop conceptions” at one end, and teaching as “transmit-
ting the concept of syllabus/teachers’ knowledge” at the
other (Prosser et al., 1994, pp. 223–225). Teachers in the for-
mer category perform the role of facilitators or collaborators,
working together with students to construct new knowledge
and understanding of various concepts. This approach leads
to the classes which are learner-centered. To facilitate knowl-
edge construction, teachers adopt inquiry-based instructions,
problem-based teaching, and practical teaching. Collaborative
and cooperative learning strategies are used by learners to
mutually construct new meanings. The situation created in
these classes usually promotes analytical, evaluative, and
creative skills among learners (Entwistle et al., 2000). By
contrast, teachers in the latter category perform the role of
knowledge transmitters. They are inclined toward didactic
teaching of the subject matter. Learners are expected to be
passive recipients of knowledge, while teachers control the
goals, structure, and pace of the teaching.
Research suggests that the epistemological beliefs of
teachers are generally consistent with their preferred teach-
ing practices (Rind, 2016; Sinatra & Kardash, 2004; Yadav
& Koehler, 2007). Yadav and Koehler (2007) found that
those teachers who adopted didactic teaching approaches
usually believed perceived knowledge as objective and
learning ability as innate. Whereas, those teachers who were
found to adopt more constructivist-oriented pedagogies per-
ceived knowledge as constructed and learning as a variable.
Rind (2016) also found that teachers who had a positivist
view of knowledge and learning adopted teaching strategies
that promoted memorization, drills, and practice. He found
that these teachers considered lectures as the best way to
transmit knowledge.
There is little room of questioning in the classes of these
teachers. A good student is considered to be the one who doesn’t
challenge the knowledge which is in the books and which the
teacher honestly tries to transmit to students. Assessments are
also based on this assumption; therefore, those students who
reproduce what is taught to them in the class are rewarded and
those who do not are victimized. In doing so, teachers
unconsciously produce dependent students who are mostly rote
learners with no critical thinking and creative skills. (p. 131)
Methodology
This research attempted to examine the development of epis-
temology and tolerance of PTs studying in BEd offered in a
DoEU and GCE during the period of 1½ years, and the influ-
ence of TEs in this process. It was done in three phases. In
the first phase, quantitative data were collected from PTs
(n = 99; female = 54%; DoEUs = 38; GCEs = 61) on their
epistemology and tolerance toward different social dimen-
sions in early 2018. In the second phase, systematic struc-
tured observations were conducted to understand the
TEs–PTs’ interactions in the classes of the DoEUs and GCEs.
Ning et al. 5
In the final phase, the same PTs were approached to respond
to the same questionnaires in August 2019. This time only 72
(female = 65%; DoEUs = 32; GCEs = 40) responded.
Thus, we only used the data of these 72 PTs for comparative
analysis. During this phase, we also approached TEs (n =
24, 20% female; DoEUs = 12, GCEs = 12) to respond to the
same questionnaires. These TEs have taught to the above-
mentioned PTs at different times during the last 1½ years.
With this approach, this study attempted to answer the over-
arching question:
Research Question 1: To what extent do the TEs influ-
ence PTs’ epistemology and tolerance?
The following subquestions were generated to seek the
answer to this question.
1. To what extent the epistemology and tolerance of PTs
develop before and after intervention in the DoEU?
2. To what extent the epistemology and tolerance of PTs
develop before and after intervention in the GCE?
3. Is there any significant difference in the development
of epistemology and tolerance of PTs in the DoEU
and GCE?
4. Is there any significant difference in the epistemol-
ogy and tolerance of TEs of DoEU and GCE?
5. Do the epistemology and tolerance of TEs correlate
with the epistemology and tolerance of PTs in DoEU
and GCE?
6. Is there any difference in the TEs and PTs interac-
tions in the classes at the DoUE and GCE?
Instruments
Two questionnaires (i.e., Epistemology Belief Questionnaire
& Tolerance Questionnaire) and a structured observation
checklist were used in the current study: for data collection.
Epistemology Belief Questionnaire (EBQ). The original EBQ is
based on 63 Likert-type items, divided into four dimensions:
structure of knowledge, stability of knowledge, speed of knowl-
edge, and ability to learn knowledge. As it is used for the first
time in the Pakistani context, the confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was conducted to verify its consistency. The results of
the CFA for epistemology showed that the scale consisted of
43 items and four subdimensions (χ2 difference = 758.14;
df = 107, p = .00). In this way, there are 24 items for structure
of knowledge, four items for stability of knowledge, four
items for speed of knowledge, and 11 items of ability to learn.
The test–retest reliability of the original EBQ was .74 (Schom-
mer, 1990). Test–retest reliability of the original factors varied
between .85 and .63 (Schommer, 1993). In the current study,
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the factors was found to
vary between .522 and .729. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for the scale as a whole was found to be .729.
Tolerance Questionnaire (TQ).  This is a self-developed tool
that originally consisted of 40 items divided into five
dimensions, that is, tolerance toward women education,
mobility, and employability, other religions, and other eth-
nicities. To validate this tool, exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was conducted, which showed that the scale con-
sisted of 20 items and four subdimensions (χ2 difference =
567.84; df = 112, p = .00). It has been stated that the rate
between chi-square goodness of fit and degree of freedom
should be five or lower. If the rate of χ2/SD is lower than
five, the factor structure is consistent (Kline, 2015; Meyers
et al., 2016). In this way, there are five items each for wom-
en’s education, women’s employability, other religions, and
other ethnicities. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the
factors was found to vary between .72 and .89. The Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole was found
to be .86.
Structured observation. An observation checklist was pre-
pared to assess (a) TEs and PTs’ interaction in the classroom,
and (b) TEs’ teaching strategies. The purpose of the first part
was to measure the time and nature of TEs’ and PTs’ partici-
pation in the classroom. As per the checklist, the class period
is divided into multiple slots each of 15 s. The observer is
required to mark tallies (maximum five) in the cell against
the types of interaction he or she observed after an interval of
15 s. For TEs, the type of interactions includes (a) describing
and explaining content, (b) accepting and using PTs’ ideas,
(c) questioning, (d) providing feedback, (e) giving direc-
tions, (f) encouraging and motivating PTs, and (g) criticiz-
ing. The PTs’ interaction includes (h) answering to TEs’
questions, (i) asking questions, (j) spontaneous talks, and (k)
silence and external interruptions. The observers were
required to observe the class for 60 min and generate 1,200
tallies. While training the observers, we realized that they
lose their concentration after 18 to 20 min of observations.
Therefore, we decided to send four observers in each class.
We divided them into two pairs. The first pair had to observe
the class for 15 min, then rest while the second pair observe
the next 15 min. In this way, we generated the data on class-
room interactions. We used the average scores from the four
observers for our analysis. For this purpose, eight classes
were observed.
The second part of the observation checklist measures
the TEs’ teaching strategies. The observer is required to
mark tallies (one) in the cell against the types of teaching
strategies he or she observed after an interval of 5 min. The
type of teaching strategies includes (a) lectures, (b) discus-
sion, (c) demonstration, (d) project method, (e) group work,
and (f) inquiry. The observers were required to observe the
class for 60 min and generate 12 tallies for each class. Four
observers observed the classes, and their average scores were
used for further analysis. For this purpose, 10 classes were
observed. In this way, a combined total of 18 classes were
observed.
6 SAGE Open

Table 1.  Statistics of PTs’ Epistemology and Tolerance Before and After Intervention in the DoEU.

Epistemology n M SD Minimum Maximum Naïve % Mixed % Sophisticated %

Structure
 Before 32 81 5.23 31 113 52 36 12
 After 52.6 6.54 22 102 23 54 23
Stability
 Before 13.5 2.11 9 19 32 56 12
 After 9.7 2.39 9 17 13 58 29
Speed
 Before 11.3 2.64 6 16 15 74 11
 After 10.2 3.12 6 17 9 67 24
Ability to learn
 Before 37.8 4.34 16 45 43 56 1
 After 22.3 4.54 13 34 23 64 13

Tolerance Intolerant % Moderate % Tolerant %

Women’s education
 Before 32 12.2 3.22 7 16 10 51 39
 After 11.12 3.89 6 20 9 44 47
Women employability
 Before 14.3 2.56 8 24 51 35 14
 After 13.8 2.09 7 22 40 42 18
Other religions
 Before 17.3 5.34 7 19 27 54 19
 After 14.4 5.21 7 19 23 38 39
Other ethnicities
 Before 15.1 2.22 5 24 21 67 12
 After 11.3 2.43 5 23 38 32 30

Note. PT = prospective teacher; DoEU = Department of Education of Universities.

Data Analysis
The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statis-
tics including mean, standard deviation, minimum and maxi-
mum scores, percentages, and frequency. To find out if the
data on epistemology and tolerance are normally distributed,
the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was carried out. The analysis
revealed the p value is less than .05, therefore Mann–Whitney
U test was employed to find the significant difference between
the development of epistemology and tolerance of PTs of
DoEUs and GCEs. The bivariate Pearson correlation was
used to determine the relation and direction of each epistemic
dimension of TEs and PTs. The same process was repeated
for each dimension of tolerance of TEs and PTs.
Findings
This section is divided according to the sub–research ques-
tions. Each subsection answers one sub–research question.
Epistemic and Tolerance Development Among
PTs of DoEUs Before and After the Intervention
Table 1 shows the mean score of DoEUs before and after inter-
vention in the Structure, Stability, Speed, and Ability to learn.
The mean scores in the Structure before and after the
intervention are 81 and 52.6, respectively. The highest score for
the Structure in the epistemology scale is 120 and the lowest is
24. The lower numbers represent developed epistemology.
Those PTs who scored between 24 and 59 are referred to as
epistemologically sophisticated, those between 60 and 95 as
epistemologically mixed, and those between 96 and 120 as epis-
temologically naïve. In the Stability, the mean scores before and
after the intervention are 13.5 and 9.7, respectively. The highest
score for this dimension in the epistemology scale is 20 and the
lowest is 4. Those who scored between 4 and 9 are referred to as
sophisticated, between 10 and 15 as mixed, and between 16 and
20 as naïve. In the Speed, the mean scores before and after the
intervention are 11.3 and 10.2, respectively. The highest score
for this dimension in the epistemology scale is 20 and the lowest
is 4. The same range of scores was applied here to categorize
PTs as in the Stability. Finally, the mean scores in the Ability to
learn before and after the intervention are 37.8 and 22.3, respec-
tively. The highest score for this dimension is 55 and the lowest
is 11. Those PTs who scored between 11 and 24 are referred to
as sophisticated, those between 25 and 39 as mixed, and those
between 40 and 55 as naïve.
Table 1 also shows the percentage of naïve, mixed,
and sophisticated before and after intervention in the
Structure, Stability, Speed, and Ability to learn. The high-
est concentration of PTs fell at the naïve and mixed end of
Ning et al. 7

Table 2.  Statistics of PTs’ Epistemology and Tolerance Before and After Intervention in GCEs.

Epistemology n M SD Minimum Maximum Naïve % Mixed % Sophisticated %

Structure
 Before 40 102 7.34 34 112 65 31 4
 After 74 6.21 21 105 53 38 9
Stability
 Before 15 3.32 8 18 44 52 4
 After 12.5 3.57 7 19 32 56 12
Speed
 Before 13.4 3.11 7 15 32 62 6
 After 11.5 3.49 6 16 21 63 16
Ability to learn
 Before 36.4 3.91 18 44 32 62 6
 After 30.3 4.11 12 35 29 62 9

Tolerance Intolerant % Moderate % Tolerant %

Women’s education
 Before 40 14.5 3.21 7 16 13 43 44
 After 13.8 3.1 7 20 19 49 32
Women’s employability
 Before 16.1 2.98 8 24 36 41 23
 After 15.1 2.78 7 22 54 34 12
Other religions
 Before 18.4 5.89 6 19 41 39 20
 After 17.3 5.71 6 19 21 40 39
Other ethnicities
 Before 16.2 3.11 6 24 14 67 19
 After 14.5 2.89 7 22 36 41 23

Note. PT = prospective teacher; GCE = Government College of Education.

the spectrum of epistemology before and after interven-
tion in all the dimensions.
Table 1 also shows the mean scores of DoEU on tolerance
toward different social dimensions. In women’s education, the
mean scores before and after are 12.2 and 11.12, respectively.
The highest score for the tolerance towards women’s educa-
tion in the tolerance scale is 25 and the lowest is 5. Those who
scored between 5 and 10 are referred to as tolerant, those
between 11 and 17 as moderates, and those between 18 and 25
as intolerants (the same formula is applied to categorize PTs‘
attitudes towards women’s employability, other religions, and
ethnicities). In the women’s employability, the mean scores
before and after intervention are 14.3 and 13.8, respectively. In
other religions, the mean scores before and after are interven-
tion 17.3 and 14.4, respectively. Finally, the mean scores
before and after intervention in the other ethnicities are 15.1
and 11.3, respectively. Table 1 also shows that on the tolerance
scale of women’s employability, other religions, and other eth-
nicities, a large percentage of PTs fall at the intolerant end both
before and after the intervention.
The mean scores before and after intervention in the Structure
are 102 and 74, respectively. In the Stability, the mean scores
before and after intervention are 15 and 12.5; in the Speed, the
mean scores before and after intervention are 13.4 and 11.5;
and in the Ability to learn, the mean scores before and after
intervention are 36.4 and 30.32, respectively. Like PTs of
DoEUs, the majority of the PTs of GCEs fell at the naïve and
mixed end of the epistemic spectrums in all the dimensions of
epistemology before and after intervention.
Table 2 also shows the mean scores of GCEs on tolerance
toward different social dimensions before and after the inter-
vention. In women’s education, the mean scores before and
after intervention are 14.5 and 13.8, respectively. In women’s
employability, the mean scores before and after intervention
are 16.1 and 15.1; in the other religions, the mean scores
before and after intervention are 18.4 and 17.3; and in the
other ethnicities, the mean scores before and after interven-
tion are 16.2 and 14.5, respectively. A large percentage of
PTs fall at the intolerant end of the spectrum of all the social
dimensions before and after the intervention.

Epistemic and Tolerance Development Among Difference in Epistemic and Tolerance Development
PTs of GCEs Before and After the Intervention Among the PTs of DoEUs and GCEs
Table 2 shows the mean scores of GCEs before and after inter- Table 3 shows no significant difference in all the epistemic dimen-
vention in the Structure, Stability, Speed, and Ability to learn. sions of DoEUs and GCEs before intervention (Structure:
8 SAGE Open

Table 3.  Results of the Mann–Whitney U Test on DoEU and GEC PTs on Epistemology and Tolerance Before and After the
Intervention.
Epistemology and tolerance dimensions Group n Mean rank Sum of ranks U p
Pre-Structure DoEU 32 37.23 1,191.50 616.500 .790
  GCE 40 35.91 1,436.50  
Post-Structure DoEU 32 34.44 1,102.00 574.000 .004
  GCE 40 38.15 1,526.00  
Pre-Stability DoEU 32 36.50 1,168.00 640.000 1.000
  GCE 40 36.50 1,460.00  
Post-Stability DoEU 32 43.55 1,393.50 414.500 .001
  GCE 40 30.86 1,234.50  
Pre-Speed DoEU 32 28.20 902.50 374.500 .422
  GCE 40 43.14 1,725.50  
Post-Speed DoEU 32 25.67 821.50 293.500 .000
  GCE 40 44.47 1,734.50  
Pre-Ability DoEU 32 34.14 1,092.50 564.500 .391
  GCE 40 38.39 1,535.50  
Post-Ability DoEU 32 33.42 1,069.50 541.500 .000
  GCE 40 38.96 1,558.50  
Pre-Women education DoEU 32 31.61 1,011.50 483.500 .074
  GCE 40 40.41 1,616.50  
Post-Women education DoEU 32 42.09 1,347.00 461.000 .042
  GCE 40 32.03 1,281.00  
Pre-Women employability DoEU 32 38.73 1,239.50 568.500 .416
  GCE 40 34.71 1,388.50  
Post-Women employability DoEU 32 31.69 1,014.00 486.000 .080
  GCE 40 40.35 1,614.00  
Pre-Other religions DoEU 32 34.88 1,116.00 588.000 .554
  GCE 40 37.80 1,512.00  
Post-Other religions DoEU 32 41.70 1,334.50 473.500 .078
  GCE 40 32.34 1,293.50  
Pre-Other ethnicities DoEU 32 30.33 970.50 442.500 .091
  GCE 40 41.44 1,657.50  
Post-Other ethnicities DoEU 32 37.70 1,206.50 601.500 .661
  GCE 40 35.54 1,421.50  

Note. DoEU = Department of Education of Universities; GCE = Government College of Education; PT = prospective teacher.

U = 616.5, p = .79; Stability: U = 640, p = 1.00; Speed: U =
374.5, p = .422; Ability: U = 564.5, p = .391); whereas there is
a significant difference in the epistemic development of DoEUs
in all the dimensions after intervention (Structure: U = 574, p =
.004; Stability: 414.5, p = .001; Speed: 293.5, p = .000; Ability:
U = 541.5, p = .000). Similarly, there is no significant difference
in tolerance of DoEUs and GCEs towards all the social dimen-
sions before intervention (Women’s Education: U = 483.5, p =
.074; Women’s Employability: U = 568.5, p = .416; Other
Religions: U = 588, p = .554; Other Ethnicities: U = 442.5, p =
.091). Surprisingly, there is no significant differenec in the toler-
ance of DoEUs and GCEs towards all the social dimensions after
the intervention as well: Women’s Education: U = 461, p = .042;
Women’s Employability: U = 486, p = .080; Other Religions:
U = 473.58, p = .078; Other Ethnicities: U = 601.5, p = .661.
Epistemology and Tolerance of TEs of the
DoEUs and GCEs
Table 4 shows the epistemology and tolerance of TEs of the
DoEUs and GCEs. In the epistemic dimension of the
Structure, the mean scores for the TEs of DoEU and GCE are
62 and 82.3, respectively. The Mann–Whitney U test suggests
that the TEs of DoEUs are significantly developed in the
Structure than the TEs of GCEs (U = 55, p = .002). Whereas,
the mean scores in the Stability for the TEs of DoEUs and
GCEs are 9.8 and 14.2, respectively. The inferential statistics
suggest a significant difference in the epistemic development
(U = 41, p = .003) of TEs of DoEUs as compared to the TEs
of GCEs. The mean scores of Speed for the TEs of DoEUs
and GCEs are 9.3 and 11.9, respectively. Here, again the TEs
of DoEUs are significant developed (U = 52, p = .000) than
the TEs of GCEs. Finally, the mean scores in the Ability to
Learn for TEs of DoEUs and GCEs are 21.2 and 35, respec-
tively. The TEs of DoEUs are significantly developed (U =
24, p = .005) in this epistemic dimension as well.
On the scale of tolerance, the mean scores of the TEs of
DoEUs and GCEs for the social dimensions of women’s
education are 9.1 and 10.4, respectively. There is no signifi-
cant difference in the attitudes of TEs of both institutes
towards women’s education (U = 68, p = .816). The mean
Ning et al. 9

Table 4.  Statistics of Teacher Educators’ Epistemology and Tolerance in the DoEUs and GCEs.

Epistemology n M SD Naïve n Mixed n Sophisticated n

Structure
 DoEU 12 62 4.21 2 5 5
 GCE 82.3 6.22 7 5 0
Stability
 DoEU 9.8 2.22 3 5 4
 GCE 14.2 2.01 8 4 0
Speed
 DoEU 9.3 3.22 3 5 4
 GCE 11.9 3.54 7 5 0
Ability to learn
 DoEU 21.2 5.41 0 6 6
 GCE 35 3.21 3 6 3

Tolerance Intolerant n Moderate n Tolerant n

Women’s education
 DoEU 12 9.1 4.2 4 5 3
 GCE 10.4 4.34 5 3 4
Women’s employability
 DoEU 12 3.32 4 6 2
 GCE 12.5 3.89 4 5 3
Other religions
 DoEU 13.2 4.21 3 8 1
 GCE 13.9 6.32 5 3 4
Other ethnicities
 DoEU 11.1 4.52 5 3 4
 GCE 10.7 4.11 4 2 6

Note. DoEU = Department of Education of Universities; GCE = Government College of Education.

scores of the women’s employability are 12 and 12.5 for
DoEUs and GCEs, respectively. The inferential statistics
show no significant difference between them (U = 71, p =
.954). For other religions, the means scores are 13.2 and 13.9
for DoEUs and GCEs, respectively. Here again, no signifi-
cant difference is found (U = 71, p = .953). Finally, the
mean scores in the other ethnicities for DoEUs and GCEs are
11.1 and 10.7. The inferential statistics do not show any sig-
nificant difference here too (U = 64, p = .662).
Correlation of TEs’ and PTs’ Epistemology and
Tolerance
In the case of DoEUs, there is a positive significant correla-
tion between the TE’s and PTs’ Structure (p = .002), Stability
(p = .004), and Ability (p = .005). Similarly, there is a posi-
tive significant correlation between the TE’s and PTs’ toler-
ance toward women’s education (p = .000), women’s
employability (p = .001), and other religions (p = .005). In
the case of GCE, there is a positive significant correlation
between TE’s and PTs’ Structure (p = .000) and Ability (p =
.003). Likewise, there is a positive significant correlation
between TE’s and PTs’ tolerance toward women’s education
(p = .001), women’s employability (p = .001), and other
ethnicities (p = .000).
TEs and PTs Interaction in the Classes of
DoEUs and GCEs
Graph 1 shows the TE and PTs’ interaction in the classrooms
of the DoEUs and GCEs. The data from the observations
show that on average, 81% of the class time in the GCEs are
used by the TEs, with only 17% allocated to PTs. Whereas,
in the DoEUs, TEs use 68% of class time, and give 38% to
the PTs. The graph also shows that the culture of question-
answering among TEs and PTs is comparatively richer in the
DoEU. At the same time, the TEs of DoEUs acknowledge
the PTs’ opinion more often than the TEs of the GCEs.
In line with the findings of Graph 1, Graph 2 shows that
TEs of the DoEUs use lecture for only 23% of their teaching-
time, whereas 77% of their teaching-time is based on discus-
sions, demonstration, project work, group work, and inquiry.
On the contrary, the TEs of GCEs use lecture up to 54% in
their teaching-time.
Discussion
The data analysis highlights seven key findings related to
TEs. These findings are as follows: (a) There is a significant
difference in the epistemic development of TEs of DoEUs as
compared to the TEs of GCEs; (b) there is no significant dif-
ference in the tolerance of TEs of DoEUs and GCEs for any
10 SAGE Open

Graph 1.  Teacher educators—PTs’ interaction in the classrooms.

Note. PT = prospective teacher; DoEU = Department of Education of Universities; GCE = Government College of Education.

Graph 2.  Teaching methods used by teacher educators in the DoEU and GCE.
Note. DoEU = Department of Education of Universities; GCE = Government College of Education.

of the social dimensions; (c) majority of the TEs of DoEUs
and GCEs fell at the intolerant end of the tolerance scale for
all the social dimensions; (d) TEs of DoEUs were found to
give more time to PTs in the class participation than the TEs
of GCEs; (e) TEs of DoEUs were found to comparatively use
more learner-centered inquiry-based teaching strategies than
TEs of GCEs; (f) the scores of TEs on each dimension of
epistemology correlate with the scores of PTs in each respec-
tive epistemic dimension; and (g) the scores of TEs on the
tolerance scale for each social dimension correlate with the
PTs’ score on tolerance scale for each respective social
dimension.
Likewise, two main findings related to PTs are (a) no sig-
nificant difference was found in the epistemology of PTs of
the DoEUs and the GCEs before the intervention. However,
there is a significant epistemic development among PTs of
the DoEUs after the intervention, although it did not develop
to the sophisticated level as expected. (b) There is no
significant difference in the tolerance level of PTs of the
DoEUs and GCEs before and after the intervention. Although
the overall tolerance of PTs for all the social dimensions have
improved to some extent after the intervention, there is still a
significantly large percentage of PTs in the DoEUs and the
GCEs who showed intolerant attitude toward women’s edu-
cation and employability, other religions, and ethnicities.
These findings are further discussed with reference to seven
key findings related to TEs in the following section.
There is no significant difference in the epistemology of
PTs of the DoEUs and GCEs before the intervention. Because
most of the PTs of DoEUs and GCEs have got their pre-uni-
versity education from a similar education system, it is not
surprising that their epistemological development has no sig-
nificant difference. In fact, research criticizes the pre-univer-
sity education system of Pakistan that promotes low-order
learning skills like memorization and mere understanding.
Creatively, critical thinking and analytical skills are
Ning et al. 11
far-fetched concepts even for some of the teachers (Halai,
2008; Halai & McNicholl, 2004). As the sophisticated epis-
temology is linked with higher-order learning skills (Bok,
2009; Fisher, 2011), it is not surprising that the majority of
the PTs in their first semesters are epistemologically naïve.
However, there is a significant epistemic development
among PTs of the DoEUs after the intervention. This is
mainly related to the TEs of DoEUs, who were found to be
epistemologically sophisticated, gave more time to PTs to
participate in the classes, and used learner-centered interac-
tive teaching strategies. Research suggests that epistemolog-
ically sophisticated teachers tend to use those teaching
strategies, which promote high-order learning skills among
students, and thus develop their epistemology (Rind, 2016;
Sinatra & Kardash, 2004; Yadav & Koehler, 2007). Whereas,
the TEs of GCEs were comparatively less epistemologically
developed, which explains their teacher-centered monolog
teaching strategies, and teacher-dominated teacher–students
interactions in the classes. It is, then, not surprising if their
PTs have not epistemologically developed to a desirable
level.
Despite that PTs of DoEUs have epistemologically devel-
oped, the majority of them fell in the middle of the epistemic
spectrum, rather than on the sophisticated end. The obvious
explanation is related to the duration (i.e., 1½ years—three
semesters) of observation used in this study. Whereas, these
PTs are expected to continue their BEd studies at the DoEU
for 4 years. Thus, it is expected that they would reach to
sophisticated end at the epistemic spectrum by the end of
their final year. The same can be assumed for the PTs of
GCEs. However, the results of a similar longitudinal study
that followed the PTs of DoEUs and GCEs for 4 years of
BEd found that majority of the PTs fell in the middle of the
epistemic spectrum even after completing their 4 years of
studies in the BEd (Rind, in press).
Another explanation of this is related to the epistemic
development of the TEs. As this study found, one third of
TEs of the DoEU were epistemologically naïve. Moreover,
the findings also highlight the correlation between the scores
of TE and PTs on each epistemic dimension. It was also
found that the epistemologically naïve TEs tend to use
teacher-centered traditional teaching methods that hinder the
critical thinking and creativity of PTs. All these indicate that
TEs would have influenced the epistemic development of
PTs to a sophisticated level. These findings complement the
previous research which linked teachers’ epistemology with
their teaching approaches that directly hinder the develop-
ment of students’ high-order learning skills and indirectly
their epistemology to sophisticated level (Rind, 2016; Sinatra
& Kardash, 2004; Yadav & Koehler, 2007).
Moreover, Rind (in press) found a conflict between BEd
objectives and assessment strategies used by TEs. The pro-
gram aims for the PTs to achieve high-order learning skills,
including analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creation (HEC,
2012; USAID, 2013). However, institutional policies of
DoEUs and GCEs promote the traditional unseen examina-
tions, which only assess PTs’ memorization and comprehen-
sion skills. Rind (in press) found some TEs of DoEUs use
teaching strategies that promote creativity and critical think-
ing among PTs; however, these TEs were found struggling to
keep PTs motivated for these activities, as the skills pro-
moted by these activities were not assessed in the unseen
examination. Extrinsically motivated PTs focused only on
those activities which helped them to get good grades, hence
they resisted all those activities which promoted high-order
learning skills, which, as mentioned earlier, are linked with
the sophisticated epistemology.
There is no significant difference in the tolerance of PTs of
the DoEUs and the GCEs before and after the intervention.
Although the overall tolerance among PTs for all the social
dimensions have improved to some extent, there is still a sig-
nificantly large percentage of intolerant PTs in the DoEUs
and the GCEs. This is also related to TEs’ tolerance toward
different social dimensions. It was found that a large number
of TEs of DoEUs and GCEs showed an intolerant attitude
toward women’s education and employability, other religions,
and ethnicities. It was also found that the scores on tolerance
scale for women’s education and employability, other reli-
gions, and ethnicities for TEs and PTs correlate. Rind (in
press) conducted in-depth interviews with the TEs of DoEUs
and GCEs to measure their tolerance toward the aforemen-
tioned social dimensions. Rind (in press) found that almost
75% of TEs showed their intolerant attitude toward women’s
education, employability, other religions, and ethnicities.
While talking to male TEs, Rind (in press) found that some of
them were in favor of early marriages of girls, hence “girls’
education up to grade ten” was justified. Others considered it
unsafe for girls to commute longer distances for education,
hence limited girls’ education was justified. Some referred to
traditional roles associated with girls (i.e., bearing child,
domestic chores, etc.) to make their point against women’s
employability. Rind (in press) found the same arguments
given by PTs, who believed that women are “weak” and “vul-
nerable to exploitation,” therefore “she may avoid working
and let the men do the job.” PTs also believed that women’s
mobility should be restricted due to “safety” and “security”
reasons. Rind’s (in press) findings complement the previously
published research in the context of Pakistan (Asian
Development Bank [ADB], 2000; Latif, 2009; Rind, 2015).
Similarly, analyzing the religious tolerance of TEs, Rind
(in press) found that the majority of the TEs openly defended
their religions, and attempted to convince the interviewer
that their religion or religious sect is “truer” and “more
appropriate” than other religious beliefs/sects. Most of them
used arguments to support their religious beliefs as well as to
oppose others’ beliefs. This showed that they have a ten-
dency to be reactive if religion/religious sect is discussed in
classroom settings. These findings complement the previous
research conducted in the context of Pakistan (Ispahani,
2017; Lall, 2008). Rind (in press) further verified TEs’
12 SAGE Open
behavior by talking to the PTs, who found their TEs taking
sides to a particular religion/religious sect when such discus-
sion takes place in the classroom setting. Rind (in press)
found the same behavioral trend in the PTs’ argument about
other religions.
The same reactive approach was observed by Rind (in
press) when he put the TEs in an argument related to their
ethnicity versus other ethnicities. Rind (in press) found that
the majority of the TEs referred to people of other ethnicities
as “intruders,” “migrants,” “uncultured,” and “uncivilized”
reflecting their frustration with members of other ethnicities.
Strangely, most of these TEs have never had a firsthand bad
experience with any member of other ethnicities, rather their
beliefs are based on the information that has been shared
with them by their elders or peer. Rind (in press) found that
PTs’ perception of other ethnicities was also established in
the same way and was reinforced by the TEs when such dis-
cussion/situation took place in formal or informal universi-
ties/GCE settings.
Conclusion
This study attempted to highlight the importance of TEs in
developing the epistemology and tolerance of the PTs toward
different social dimensions. Using a comparative approach,
this study showed that a similar program generated different
outcomes in PTs’ epistemology and tolerance because of the
epistemology and attitude of the TEs. Contrary to previous
research (Adhyatm, 2015; Davis, 1997), this study shows
that epistemologically sophisticated TEs may have an intol-
erant worldview toward women’s education, employability,
other religions, and ethnicities. And that these attitudes of
TEs may effectively transfer among the PTs. Although there
is a number of methodological and theoretical limitations of
this study, it offers a glimpse of recent teacher education
reform from the perspective of epistemology and attitude of
TEs and PTs. There is a number of other factors that may
shape the epistemology and tolerance of PTs including the
institutional culture, family values, peer pressures, and so on,
which require further investigations. Another limitation of
this study is its limited exposure to TE epistemology and tol-
erance. There is a need for in-depth research on exploring the
development of TEs’ epistemology and tolerance, and the
ways in which these are correlated.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research is partially funded by Higher Education Commission,
Pakistan’s NRPU, Project # 6257 and Chinese National Social
Sciences Fund Education Youth Project (No. CHA180269).
ORCID iDs
Bo Ning https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-2693
Irfan Ahmed Rind https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2686-6166
References
Adhyatm. (2015, October 30). The causes of fundamentalism, intol-
erance and extremism in world religions, and some solutions.
Speakingtree.in. https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/the-causes-
of-fundamentalism-intolerance-and-extremism-in-world-
religions-and-some-solutions
Asian Development Bank. (2000, July). Women in Pakistan:
Country briefing paper. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/
files/institutional-document/32562/women-pakistan.pdf
Awan, R. (2017, March 21). The journey from extremism to tol-
erance. Daily Times. https://dailytimes.com.pk/21978/the-
journey-from-extremism-to-tolerance/
Awan, S. (2012). Impact of radical Islamisation of education on
Pakistani society. Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies,
4(2), 45–55.
Bajoria, J. (2009, October 7). Pakistan’s education system and links
to extremism. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.
cfr.org/backgrounder/pakistans-education-system-and-links-
extremism
Barnes, P. (2006). The misrepresentation of religion in modern
British (religious) education. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 54(4), 395–411.
Bok, D. (2009). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how
much students learn and why they should be learning more
(Vol. 50, New ed.). Princeton University Press.
Breton, A., Galeotti, G., Salmon, P., & Wintrobe, R. (2002).
Political extremism and rationality. Cambridge University
Press.
Brew, A., & Jewell, E. (2012). Enhancing quality learning through
experiences of research-based learning: Implications for aca-
demic development. International Journal for Academic
Development, 17(1), 47–58.
Bruckner, T. (2017, December 6). How USAID’s secret think tank
funding hurts the poor. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/
entry/usaid-think-tanks_b_8240792
Burki, S. J. (2017, September 25). Treatment of women in Pakistan.
The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1515421/
treatment-women-pakistan/
Council on Foreign Relations. (2009). Pakistan’s education system
and links to extremism. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/
pakistans-education-system-and-links-extremism
Cohen, S. (2003). Bush administration isolates U.S. at interna-
tional meeting to promote Cairo agenda. https://www.guttm
acher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060103.pdf
Crabtree, V. (2012). The causes of fundamentalism, intolerance and
extremism in world religions, and some solutions. https://www.
speakingtree.in/blog/the-causes-of-fundamentalism-intoler-
ance-and-extremism-in-world-religions-and-some-solutions
Davies, L. (2008). Education against extremism. Trentham Books.
Davies, L. (2009). Educating against extremism: Towards a criti-
cal politicisation of young people. International Review of
Education, 55(2–3), 183–203.
Davis, E. A. (1997). Students’ epistemological beliefs about science
and learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED407257
Ning et al. 13
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000).
Conceptions and beliefs about “good teaching”: An integration
of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research &
Development, 19(1), 5–26.
Fair, C. C. (2015). Militant recruitment in Pakistan: A new look
at the militancy–madrasah connection. In R. Kalia (Ed.),
Pakistan’s political labyrinths: Military, society and terror
(pp. 71–97). Routledge.
Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge
University Press.
Halai, N. (2008). Curriculum reform in science education in
Pakistan. Aga Khan University Press.
Halai, N., & McNicholl, J. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of the
nature of science: A comparative study from Pakistan and UK.
School Science Review, 86(314), 93–100.
Higher Education Commission. (2012). Curriculum of education:
B.Ed (Hons) elementary. http://hec.gov.pk/english/services/
universities/RevisedCurricula/Pages/Education.aspx
Hofer, B. K. (1997). The development of personal epistemology:
Dimensions, disciplinary differences, and instructional prac-
tices [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. https://
search.proquest.com/docview/304356421
Hofer, B.K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differ-
ences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(4), 378–405.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications
for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review,
13(4), 353–383.
Holma, K., & Hyytinen, H. (2015). The philosophy of personal
epistemology. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3),
334–350.
Ispahani, F. (2017). Pakistan’s descent into religious intolerance.
Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, 21, 69–116.
Kahn, M. M. (2006). Conservative Christian teachers: Possible con-
sequences for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. Intercultural
Education, 17(4), 359–371.
Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemologi-
cal beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cogni-
tive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(3), 524–535.
Khan, R. (2017, July 21). Dynamics of ethnic conflicts in Pakistan.
The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1462573/
dynamics-ethnic-conflicts-pakistan/
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. Guilford Press.
Koehler, D. (2016). Understanding deradicalization: Methods, tools
and programs for countering violent extremism. Routledge.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development
of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development,
15(3), 309–328.
Lall, M. (2008). Educate to hate: The use of education in the cre-
ation of antagonistic national identities in India and Pakistan.
Compare, 38(1), 103–119.
Latif, A. (2009). A critical analysis of school enrollment and liter-
acy rates of girls and women in Pakistan. Educational Studies,
45(5), 424–439.
Lucas, U., & Tan, P. L. (2013). Developing a capacity to engage
in critical reflection: Students “ways of knowing” within an
undergraduate business and accounting programme. Studies in
Higher Education, 38(1), 104–123.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multi-
variate research: Design and interpretation. Sage.
Moss, T. J., Standley, S., & Roodman, D. (2005, September 15). The
global war on terror and U.S. development assistance: USAID
allocation by country, 1998-2005 [Working Paper No. 62].
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=800708
Pape, R. A. (2006). Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide ter-
rorism. Random House.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development
in the college years: A scheme [Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult
Education Series]. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED424494
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomeno-
graphic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning
and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231.
Rind, I. (in press). Tracking the development and relation of per-
sonal epistemology and tolerance among pre-service teachers
in Pakistan. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies.
Rind, I. A. (2015). Gender identities and female students’ learn-
ing experiences in studying English as second language at a
Pakistani University. Cogent Education, 2(1), Article 1115574.
Rind, I. A. (2016). How newly appointed ESL teachers’ beliefs
are translated into their pedagogic strategies. IOSR Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 6(1), 124–132.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching
held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93–111.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowl-
edge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(3), 498–504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and aca-
demic performance among secondary students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411.
Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epis-
temological beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
68(4), 551–562.
Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological
beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is
simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(4), 435–443.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological
beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The
Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5–20.
Shams, S. (2016, August 17). Pakistan’s Islamization: Before and
after dictator Zia-ul Haq. DW Freedom. https://p.dw.com/p/1Jjid
Shaukat, S., Siddiquah, A., & Pell, A. W. (2014). Gender discrimi-
nation in higher education in Pakistan: A survey of university
faculty. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 56, 109–
126.
Sieckelinck, S., De Ruyter, D., Hand, M., & Winch, C. (2006).
Mad about ideals? Educating for reasonable passion. In
Annual Conference Philosophy of Education. http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.3258&rep=re
p1&type=pdf
Sinatra, G. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2004). Teacher candidates’
epistemological beliefs, dispositions, and views on teaching
as persuasion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4),
483–498.
14 SAGE Open
United States Agency for International Development. (2010).
Rationalization of pre-service teacher education programs
in Pakistan. https://docplayer.net/4903104-Rationalization-
of-pre-service-teacher-education-programs-in-pakistan-pre-
step-pre-service-teacher-education-program-pre-step-paki
stan.html
United States Agency for International Development. (2013).
USAID teacher education project report: National interchange
on teacher education reforms and their implications.
United States Agency for International Development–United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
(2006). Strategic Framework for Teacher Education and
Professional Development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED497053.pdf
Varga, M. (2014, April 29). Countries are right to ban USAID.
Quartz. https://qz.com/203935/countries-are-right-to-ban-usaid/
Winthrop, R., & Graff, C. (2010). Beyond Madrasas: Assessing
the links between education and militancy in Pakistan. https://
www.brookings.edu/research/beyond-madrasas-assessing-the-
links-between-education-and-militancy-in-pakistan/
Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). The role of epistemological
beliefs in preservice teachers’ interpretation of video cases of
early-grade literacy instruction. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 15(3), 335–361.