Beliefs versus resources: a tale of two models of epistemology
Beliefs versus resources: a tale of two models of epistemology
复制标题
信念与资源：两种认识论模型的故事
DOI：
10.1039/d2rp00290f
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Stowe, Ryan L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
DeGlopper, Kimberly S.;Russ, Rosemary S.;Sutar, Prayas K.;Stowe, Ryan L.
令人信服的证据，从多层次的学校教育，表明教师的知识和信念的知识，知道，和学习（即，认识论）在塑造他们的教学方法方面发挥着重要作用。鉴于认识论在科学教学中的重要性，我们作为研究人员必须仔细注意如何在我们的工作中建模。也就是说，我们必须努力明确和令人信服地发展认识论的理论模型，以解释我们在课堂和其他环境中观察到的学习现象。在这里，我们使用的教师访谈数据的解释，探讨在化学和科学教育奖学金常见的两种模式的认识论的约束和启示：认识论的信念和认识论的资源。认识论的信念通常被假定为在时间和地点上是稳定的，并且处于从“以教师为中心”（更差）到“以学生为中心”（更好）的连续体上。相比之下，认识论的资源模型认为，一个人对知识和认识的看法是从称为资源的小颗粒认知单位中即时编译出来的。因此，一个人的认识论可能会改变一个时刻到下一个。此外，资源模型明确拒绝了存在一个“最佳”认识论的概念，而是假定不同的认识论在不同的背景下是有用的。使用这两种认识论模型来推断教师的认识论，从他们的教学方法的对话，我们证明了一个模型的认识论如何影响可能的分析，以及合理的影响，支持教师学习。通过一个信念模型，使索赔教师有“更好”或“更差”的信念，并建议的价值，旨在转向“更好”的信念干预。相比之下，建模认识论的资源，使我们能够解释观察到的不稳定性教师的认识和学习的看法，表面和描述潜在的生产性认识论资源，并考虑教师学习精炼有价值的直觉，而不是“修复”“错误的信念”。
Compelling evidence, from multiple levels of schooling, suggests that teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about knowledge, knowing, and learning (i.e., epistemologies) play a strong role in shaping their approaches to teaching and learning. Given the importance of epistemologies in science teaching, we as researchers must pay careful attention to how we model them in our work. That is, we must work to explicitly and cogently develop theoretical models of epistemology that account for the learning phenomena we observe in classrooms and other settings. Here, we use interpretation of instructor interview data to explore the constraints and affordances of two models of epistemology common in chemistry and science education scholarship: epistemological beliefs and epistemological resources. Epistemological beliefs are typically assumed to be stable across time and place and to lie somewhere on a continuum from “instructor-centered” (worse) to “student-centered” (better). By contrast, a resources model of epistemology contends that one's view on knowledge and knowing is compiled in-the-moment from small-grain units of cognition called resources. Thus, one's epistemology may change one moment to the next. Further, the resources model explicitly rejects the notion that there is one “best” epistemology, instead positing that different epistemologies are useful in different contexts. Using both epistemological models to infer instructors’ epistemologies from dialogue about their approaches to teaching and learning, we demonstrate that how one models epistemology impacts the kind of analyses possible as well as reasonable implications for supporting instructor learning. Adoption of a beliefs model enables claims about which instructors have “better” or “worse” beliefs and suggests the value of interventions aimed at shifting toward “better” beliefs. By contrast, modeling epistemology as in situ activation of resources enables us to explain observed instability in instructors’ views on knowing and learning, surface and describe potentially productive epistemological resources, and consider instructor learning as refining valuable intuition rather than “fixing” “wrong beliefs”.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
Chari, Deepa N.;Nguyen, Hai D.;Zollman, Dean A.;Sayre, Eleanor C.
通讯作者：
Sayre, Eleanor C.
教师和学校特征及其对课程实施的影响
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
G. Roehrig;Rebecca A. Kruse;A. Kern
通讯作者：
A. Kern
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Gibbons, Rebecca E.;Villafane, Sachel M.;Raker, Jeffrey R.
通讯作者：
Raker, Jeffrey R.
采用以学生为中心的教材作为大学教师的专业发展经验
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
C. D. Czajka;D. McConnell
通讯作者：
D. McConnell
挑战教师变革：关于材料开发对地球科学教师教学信念影响的混合方法调查
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Michael Pelch;D. McConnell
通讯作者：
D. McConnell