Teacher Candidates’ Epistemic Reflexivity about Elementary Science Instruction

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4843210/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Teacher Candidates’ Epistemic Reflexivity about Elementary Science Instruction

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4843210/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Knowledge of science and engineering practices remain a priority in the U.S. (NASEM, 2021) and internationally (Allen et al., 2021). Moreover, scientific thinking is recognized as necessary for a healthy and equitable society (NASEM, 2021). This positions educators to prepare students with a scientific skill set via complex methods (NSTA, 2020), yet research documents elementary teachers lack confidence in their training and knowledge necessary to teach science (Nowikowski, 2017). Therefore, pre-service training is an ideal context to introduce a practical heuristic for thinking critically about science instruction. Epistemic education recently established new directions to support teachers to engage in critical evaluation of knowledge that results in action. The construct of epistemic reflexivity offers a pathway to improving views of knowledge and interactions with knowing (Lunn Brownlee, Feucht, & Schraw, 2017). The extant record has not yet explored preservice teachers use of this conceptual frame for critical thinking. This paper reports the results of a pilot study where teacher candidates in a baccalaureate level teacher induction program engaged in epistemic reflexivity to consider the relationship between how knowledge is developed in science by experts and how these ideas may influence how children are taught. This was done through written prompts based on constructs from the (3R-EC) framework for epistemic reflexivity developed by Lunn Brownlee et al. (2019).

Educational Philosophy and Theory

epistemic reflexivity

epistemic cognition

teacher education

nature of science knowledge

To inspire an active citizenry and nurture scientific minds, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 2020) advocates for educators to support constructivist principles for learning. To meet the aim of supporting scientific literacy in K-16 education as outlined in the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013), it is useful to engage students in learning about characteristics about the nature of science (Lederman, 2007; Lederman & Lederman, 2014; NSTA, 2016). One pedagogical method that has been advocated as a powerful tool for acquiring content and perspective on the nature of science (NOS) is inquiry. However, as Abd-El-Khalik and colleagues (2004) pointed out, inquiry, as practically enacted by teachers, tends to be disjointed from the expert definition. Scientific thinking is recognized as having implications for a healthy and equitable society (NASEM, 2021); however, challenges remain for teachers to support the processes of scientific inquiry. While a variety of factors impede the implementation of powerful instruction in science (Abd-El-Khalik, 2004), calls have been made for a practical heuristic that can “increase the likelihood of impacting classroom practices related to inquiry” (p. 415).

Many of today’s teacher candidates experienced schooling in a “traditional model” that leaned on memorization and recitation of facts. This results in a tendency to rely on authority as sources of knowledge and experience learning through resources such as textbooks (Tabak & Weinstock, 2011). A teacher candidate may impart perspectives from a trusted authority to teach science from a position of “comfort with the basics in managing a classroom” with a premium placed on delivering science as “endpoints” (Duschl, 2008, p. 286). In other words, a teacher imparts knowledge in a manner that reduces the messy process of knowledge development to convey that discovery is a straight and clean process. This can “foster absolutist positions” or a belief that knowledge is fixed and static (Tabak & Weinstock, 2011, p. 184). When this view is held by teachers it presents a barrier to process-focused thinking (Kuhn, 1999).

Another challenge for teaching and learning within the science domain is grasping that the nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) is a product of human construction (Sandoval, 2005). This relates to characteristics of science as tentative but durable; a challenging concept (Cofré et al., 2019) and an oft neglected aspect of curriculum in teacher education programming both in the U.S. and internationally (Cofré et al. 2015). For the science educator, the aforementioned concepts are important epistemic considerations that relate to instruction (Sandoval, 2005).

Given that education is concerned with development (Dewey, 1916), and pluralistic societies are concerned with different ways of knowing, especially with increased importance of the social and cultural dimensions in the nature of science (Duschl, 2008), epistemic development, or a concern for being metacognitive about knowledge and processes for developing knowledge, is an important way forward for teacher education programs (Hofer, 2001; Barzilai & Chinn, 2017; Lunn Brownlee et al., 2017). Despite the importance of epistemic education, there is a lack of documentation on how student teachers can consider aims and plan to teach based on what they deem important intentions for knowledge in elementary science. Although not all aims need to be epistemic for effective instruction (Greene, Sandoval & Braten, 2016), research can benefit from a focus on identifying teacher candidates’ aims and how these are actualized in specific teaching contexts (Chinn & Barzilai, 2018,).

Barzilai and Chinn (2018) and Lunn Brownlee et al. (2019; 2022) established a baseline for epistemic performance from experts' reasoning and reflexivity in domain specific situations, however, to date, there is no study that has determined reasonable expectations for student teachers' epistemic performance for learning to teach science, using the (3R-EC) framework developed by Lunn Brownlee, Ferguson, and Ryan (2017) with and for teachers.

This exploratory study focused on understanding how students engage in epistemic reflexivity to plan in an elementary science course. This was done with the intention to inform and enrich approaches to science education. Therefore, two aims guided the development and informed the outcomes of the study:

Explore the ways student teachers engaged in reflexivity for teaching elementary science using the 3R-EC framework.

Discuss the extent engagement in reflexivity was useful to plan and evaluate methods of science instruction in the elementary classroom.

Theoretical Frame

This study was informed by the field of epistemic education as well as literature grounded in epistemic characteristics about nature of science (NOS) and how discoveries are made, known as nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK). These terms were differentiated by Lederman and Lederman (2019) but effectively mean the same thing and are used interchangeably in this project but will mirror the citation of the original work cited. Epistemic education is concerned with the development of “critical thinking, argumentation, and inquiry” while drawing from metacognitive aspects of knowledge and knowing (Chinn & Barzilai, 2018, p. 354). The concepts labeled as NOS are epistemic constructs at its root (Lederman, 1992). Greene et al. (2017) advocate for scholarship across related epistemic constructs, sharing that there is “much to be gained from reading broadly across the many academic disciplines that consider epistemic issues and ideas” (p. 505). The purpose of this review is to share literature concerning epistemic cognition related to teacher’s planning and evaluation of pedagogy useful for supporting inquiry-based science instruction.

Inquiry as a Method of Instruction

Inquiry, at the heart of science, is often inspired by a curiosity and undertaken by a process of discovery made precise through attention to detail. It is likened to a cognitive journey that attempts to resolve uncertainty under ideal conditions (Dewey, 1938; D’agnese, 2017). The uncertainty of knowledge is an epistemic construct and is considered from two traditions: A. epistemic education and B. scientific ways of knowing or the nature of science. Each construct is reviewed separately below.

A. Epistemic Education

Epistemology is the field of study about what defines knowledge and its acquisition. This field of research has developed over 40 years, with origins in Western perspectives on views and processes of developing knowledge (Perry, 1968/1970). This work is derived from principles of philosophy and education psychology. There are many traditions and lines of inquiry within this field, but epistemology generally can be defined as the network of beliefs an individual has about knowledge and the processes of acquiring knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, 1990). A popular conception is that these beliefs are reflective of dimensions that include the source, certainty, simplicity, and justification of knowledge (Hofer, 2004).

In educational settings, these beliefs have been shown to influence how an individual approaches learning and instruction (Feucht & Bendixen, 2010), affect how a teacher teaches (Weinstock & Roth, 2011; Tsai, 2002), and determine the resources a teacher chooses to use in the classroom (Schraw & Olafson, 2010). A specific emphasis in this field has been on teachers as learners (Brownlee, 2001; Walker, Brownlee, Exley, Woods & Whiteford, 2011). The explicit connection to personal epistemology and teaching reveals mixed results with misalignment of espoused and enacted beliefs in practice (Kang, 2008). Fives (2011) concluded that epistemic beliefs filter learning experiences and guide teacher planning, but inconsistencies have been found between teachers’ beliefs and actions. She noted beliefs may not develop in a coherent fashion due to contextual factors related to the classroom.

Epistemic beliefs have been explored as well from the standpoint of learning, showing an influence on conceptual change (Mason, 2003) and cognitive change and strategic decision making (Kardash & Howell, 2000). A dimensional stage like progression view of epistemic beliefs (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Hofer, 2000) and developmental progression of beliefs (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002) has led to seeking intervention to teach for epistemic change (Kienhues, Bromme & Stahl, 2008; Mason & Scrivani, 2004; Bendixen, 2016).

Hofer (2012) has noted that the field has evolved from application of epistemic beliefs in a general manner to seeking the influence in subject specific contexts. This turn suggests that beliefs an individual holds about knowledge and knowing are proposed to be within a discipline (e.g., science, math) or topic (e.g., a chemistry experiment) versus an individual possessing a belief that guides decision making in an all-encompassing way, although both domain general and domain specific beliefs can be drawn from to influence decisions (Muis et al., 2006). These beliefs have been found to be unique to a context within the discipline (e.g., VanSledright & Lemon, 2006; Lee et al., 2021).

Researchers have challenged the direction of epistemic education (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018) and how epistemic cognition is measured (Greene & Yu, 2013; Greene, Sandoval & Braten, 2013). This shift in direction has renewed Elby and Hammer’s (2001) call for a view that accounts for differences in context on how beliefs translate to practice. Hammer’s (2005) critique supports a resource view, suggesting “students as having rich collections of epistemological resources, rather than as a single position” (p. 21). The resource perspective supports individuals capable of diverse thinking, triggered by task and instructions, rather than stage-like developmental progressions. This contributed in part to Chinn, Buckland, and Sumuaguvarn’s, (2011) expansive view of epistemic cognition that incorporates Hammer and Elby’s (2002) notion of “fined grained beliefs” (p. 162).

Chinn, Rinehart, & Buckland (2014) have clarified the tenets set forth in Chinn et al. (2011) to explain how individuals come to know and process information as accurate or inaccurate. This framework is known as the AIR model, comprised of three aspects: the components begin with the individual’s goals or Epistemic Aim/s, proceed to consider the individual’s Epistemic Ideals and Reliable Processes used in processing information (AIR). The AIR model allows introspection into cognitive workings of an individual engaged in an inquiry. The AIR model allows the participant to consider the goal or the information, understanding, and/or knowledge needed; as well as the approach necessary to decide about accuracy, utility, and truth.

Epistemic Aims. Each aspect of the AIR model is articulated with detail and examples by Chinn, Rinehart, & Buckland (2014). When an individual seeks to determine that something is true that person has an intellectual aim for gaining knowledge. The researchers assert that an aim is tightly bound with personal values. When an individual selects an aim that is scientific in nature, there can be a certain value that person puts on achievement of that aim. In contrast, the value for gaining the knowledge influences the aim sought. The authors assert that research benefits from learning the aims an individual draws from when seeking knowledge. In this way, when a topic or information is presented the aim of the individual (and value) will determine what happens as the person encounters different perspectives on the topic. Goals that are related to knowledge and ways of knowing can be considered epistemic aims. Conversely, aims not related to knowledge may be due to a personal inclination are termed non-epistemic. The authors name examples such as adopting a belief for self-preservation and passing a college course.

Epistemic ideals. These are criteria used to evaluate if the aim is met. Chinn et al. (2014) included this construct based on the work of Toulmin (1972), a philosopher of science, who argued a scientist’s use of “explanatory ideals” is to develop a proper explanation based on criteria that is deemed acceptable by the community (p. 433). This is where the Chinn et al. (2014) model merges Hofer & Pintrich’s (1997) long recognized dimensional view of beliefs where categories of justification and structure of knowledge are subsumed under criteria for how ideals are justified by the individual. The professional scientist has standards that are well documented and made explicit through training and reporting to others for verification of a claim. Some criteria the scientist recognizes to support a claim may rely on data collection and analysis, as well as refutation of counter evidence. These examples are termed ideals (Chinn et al., 2014). What is more, Chinn and colleagues suggested that an individual with a personal stake in a claim, like one related to the effects of coffee and health, may reject the methodology of a study to preserve their existing belief about how wonderful coffee can be. The same individual may require many studies to begin to shift their long-held belief. This suggests that the “evidentiary standard” is higher for a belief that is personal (Chinn et al., p. 432). A teacher who is approaching an educational technique or method that has not been used in their “apprenticeship of observation”, or formative experience in K-12 schooling where the planning for teaching was obscured from the learner, may not yet be clear on the intention behind certain strategies for instruction (Lortie, 1975).

Reliable processes. To meet a chosen aim an individual makes judgments to select methods that are appropriate for meeting the task. These are the “thinking processes” that are “necessary to achieve aims” or reliable processes (Chinn et al., 2011/2014). This is opposed to a common practice that Chinn and his colleague shared where students are offered “a large array of processes” to verify claims and that it is not “effective” to share these as reliable or not (p. 448). In science, students are asked to reason and make judgement about what they can discover through consideration of claims. Through this interrogation they consider what these claims reveal about the aims, REPs and criteria for judging if these met their goals.

Epistemic Reflexivity

Lunn Brownlee, Ferguson, and Ryan (2017) extend Chinn and colleagues’ (2011) model to support teaching by including reflexivity with the AIR components. The concept of epistemic reflexivity (EC) was articulated by Lunn Brownlee, Ferguson, and Ryan (2017) and refined by Lunn Brownlee, Rowan, Ryan, et al. (2019). Reflexivity is an integral component of the (3R-EC) framework (adapted by Lunn Brownlee et al., 2017; Lunn Brownlee & Schraw, 2017; Lunn Brownlee et al., 2016). The 3R (Reflection, Reflexivity, and Resolved Action) is purposeful thinking focused on epistemic cognition (EC) that leads to action. Lunn Brownlee and colleagues (2017) argued that reflecting on epistemic cognition in the specific context of one’s teaching practices can be regarded as a process of reflexivity. The authors share this was built on Ryan and Bourke’s (2013) assumption that reflexivity can influence change in teaching practices. The 3R–EC framework was empirically tested in teaching to/about diversity in teacher education (Lunn Brownlee, Rowan, Walker, Bourke & Churchward, 2019).

Lunn Brownlee, Ferguson, and Ryan (2017) carry forward the notion that development can occur when teaching practices are aligned with epistemic cognition. This change is supported when a candidate’s actions are in direct response to their epistemic reflexivity. The (3R-EC) framework was developed as a tool to support the calibration of reflexivity and action. It serves to permit thinkers to engage in reflexivity as a tool to support epistemic change. This is built on a theory that leverages social construction for development of academic ideas, with a goal of achieving a well-considered change in thinking. The model extends Chinn, Buckland, and Sumuaguvarn’s (2011) tenets for AIR and is based on Archer’s (2012) constructs of discernment, deliberation, and dedication (3D). Lunn Brownlee et al. (2017) explain reflexivity as an:

internal conversation that includes discernment (reflecting on a key issue or aim for them as a teacher or person, e.g., student well-being), deliberation (reflexively weighing personal and contextual concerns including motivations, priorities, and the impact of potential subversion of expected practices such as teaching to the test), and dedication (resolved action). (p. 247)

The epistemic aims are the anchor for this model and the 3R’s of reflect, reflexivity and resolved action are the means to engage in purposeful activity to meet the aim. The steps of the 3R model are useful for personal insight into how to approach a problem in relation to their epistemic aims and ability to consider reliable ways to achieve those aims. In this study, this framing supported the development of a protocol for new teachers to develop an informed position on curriculum and instruction.

Epistemic aims can focus teachers’ attention to what matters in planning science engagements reflective of their aims. Understanding the ways teacher candidates engage in reflexivity about science and the aims of the work can provide insights into supporting knowledge development in teachers, and in turn, their students (Chinn et al., 2011). Documenting how cognition occurs when learning to teach is important given the complexity of teaching and the varied goals teachers have for learners.

B. The Tentative Nature of Science

When seeking to develop “effective teaching approaches” to further the aim of epistemic education it is important to “involve disciplinary research” (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018, p. 381). Therefore, this section outlines perspectives on NOS and how teacher pedagogy can consider the notion of “tentativeness” in science that is described as a key attribute of the Nature of Science Knowledge (NOSK) or the Nature of Science (NOS).

NOSK has been considered through various lines of inquiry over the past 100 years. A common thread is how science is characterized (Lederman, 2007; Lederman et al., 2014). At its origin, the field of scientific discovery is a constructivist enterprise, a point made in Thomas Kuhn’s (1970) seminal work, as shared by Lederman (2019). This points to innovation and discovery benefiting from following a question to its logical conclusion without a preconceived outcome. It can be valuable for the learner to engage in these principles as well as the professional scientist. This has benefits for motivation, engagement, and the development of evaluative thinking necessary for scientific inquiry (Kuhn, 2005).

Lederman et al. (1987) has been influential in exploring science teachers’ conceptions of NOS and their influence on teaching. Research underscores the importance of approaching NOSK as an explicit instructional goal in the classroom alongside traditional science instruction (Lederman & Lederman, 2019, p. 7).

The specific aspects of NOSK that are emphasized differs based on educational goals. For example, Sweeney (2010) found twelve aspects, while Akerson et al. (2010) highlighted five as key. The NGSS (2013) highlighted eight aspects that define scientific knowledge. These are outlined these alongside their related processes and concepts as follows:

• Scientific Investigations Use a Variety of Methods

• Scientific Knowledge is Based on Empirical Evidenc

• Scientific Knowledge is Open to Revision in Light of New Evidence

• Science Models, Laws, Mechanisms, and Theories Explain Natural Phenomena

Those understandings associated with Crosscutting Concepts are:

• Science is a Way of Knowing

• Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems

• Science is a Human Endeavour

• Science Addresses Questions About the Natural and Material World

(Lederman & Lederman, 2019, p. 6)

A meta-analysis by Cofre et al. (2019) concluded there is no clear determination on one strategy that is more effective for teachers learning about aspects of NOS. This leaves room to explore a cognitive approach that recognizes the complexity and variability in understanding and teaching NOSK, and how it can inform instructional practices.

One central tenet is that knowledge is tentative (Lederman, 2007). This means that facts, theories, and laws are not established and writ in stone, but subject to change. The evolution of knowledge in science is due to the field being a human endeavor, or a social construct, that requires inferences made using evidence and evolving technologies. New ideas shift how evidence can be interpreted and what is known and considered as truth (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2002).

Perla and Carifio (2008) suggested the tentative nature of science is justified as useful for educators and researchers, having been “empirically validated” by science experts across many domains (p. 5). However, they caution against a simplistic semantic interpretation of the nature of science. The authors suggest that language used to express NOS concepts is complex and requires nuance to be accurately communicated and understood. In relating Olson and Clough’s (2003) perspective, the authors posited that scientific findings and proofs that are “tentative” are epistemic concerns for practice and research without this attention there is a risk of misconceptions (as cited in Perla and Carifio, 2008, p. 4).

Perla and Carifio (2008) point out that language used to communicate the tentative nature of science can be misunderstood, leading to generalizations which are akin to teaching through transmission of a “slogan” (p. 13). They suggest that instruction needs to convey the nuanced nature of tentativeness. Drawing from traditions in logic and philosophy, the authors breakdown the notion of “tentative” to reveal inconsistencies in the use of the term. They share where this idea can become an overly simplified understanding (i.e., reporting of scientific findings) and problematic for researchers and educators of science.

Perla and Carifio recommend that science education should support nuanced thinking about the constructs of the NOSK. To do so, they suggest consideration of ambiguity of empirical findings as a result of human construction. They pointed out that expert scientists are subject to account for the ambiguity in their work and the science educator benefits from interrogation of these constructs as well. Perla and Carifio (2008) expressed this sentiment: "[s]ince we know that students and many teachers have difficulty with epistemic terms and concepts, great care should be exercised in constructing and using such terms and concepts” (p. 14).

Being intentional with use of complex terms can benefit from interrogation of the characteristics of science as tentative. Perla and Carifio suggested that without consideration to the qualifications of “tentative” then the learner may encounter misconceptions. The authors suggested that instructional materials for kindergarten through tertiary schooling may create explicitly and implicitly held misconceptions due to lack of “philosophical” nuance in meaning of the term tentative. Therefore, the authors concluded it is valuable for the novice, not just the professional, to develop “a sound appreciation for understanding the nature of science” (p.15).

To avoid misconceptions, it is important to provide clear and nuanced opportunities to learn about the semantic and epistemic aspects of the nature of science. One way to do this as recommended by Duschl (2008) is to use the term “responsive” instead of tentative (p. 274). This helps learners understand that scientific inquiry involves evolutions in thinking and reasoning about evidence. The language of responsiveness helps the novice to move from a notion of tentative that is possibly misconstrued as “unsupported by evidence” (p. 274). This can allow a shift in curriculum that permits Schwab’s notion of “enquiry of enquiry” (as cited in Duschl, p. 276).

Consideration of the NOSK provides a strong impetus for engagement in epistemic cognition and supporting scientific literacy in school. Education and instructional practice, like the “specialized fields” of history or science, has its own culture (Weinstock et. al., 2017, p. 288). Teacher candidates who have explored competing theoretical perspectives can foster deeper engagement in epistemic cognition about teaching instruction, and these efforts have been noted to support epistemic change (Parkinson & Maggioni, 2017).

This study focused on documenting the utility of epistemic reflexivity as a learning engagement for planning and evaluating self-selected aims for teaching science. Using the (3R-EC) framework for epistemic reflexivity, a course assessment was developed based on prompts designed to generate cognition about epistemic concepts. Specific prompts about aims, reliable processes and other constructs of the 3R-EC framing followed after consideration of how the tentative nature may influence child learning in the classroom to answer the aims of this study. (1): Explore the ways student teachers engaged in reflexivity for teaching elementary science using the 3R-EC framework and (2): Discuss the extent engagement in reflexivity was useful to plan and evaluate methods of science instruction in the elementary classroom.

Setting and Context

This two-credit science methods course is offered in an accelerated 8-week format instead of a traditional 16-week format. The course is scaffolded for students to consider what science students learn in school, the goals of society in relation to science, the nature of science, and characteristics of the nature of science as they investigate content and processes that are important to help elementary students’ development of mental constructions for learning and teaching science as a k-6 teacher. There is an emphasis on constructivist principles for organizing learning engagements and teaching through inquiry.

The participants in this study are teacher candidates in a baccalaureate induction program methods course for elementary science. Each participant was enrolled in an undergraduate course titled, Science Methods for Elementary Teachers. Students were in their sophomore year in the teaching program. The teacher candidates were largely from ----------------- (removed for anonymized main document see title page) as well as rural towns in adjacent counties.

An exploratory case study was carried out with an original data set of eighteen teacher candidates (n = 18). In this pilot study about epistemic reflexivity, the case study approach was decided upon Feucht’s (2010) insight that the context specific nature of epistemic cognition is uniquely suited to offer nuance for epistemic cognition. The case design was made up of individual sub-cases represented by each candidate. Six complete data sets were made accessible by female teacher candidates for further analysis (n = 6). This permitted consideration of individual cases and how they may combine to consider shared themes (Yin, 2014). This allowed examination of teacher candidates’ engagement in epistemic cognition to identify, plan, and draw upon reliable instructional methods reflective of scientific processes of knowing or process-oriented inquiry. The case was descriptive by drawing from a reference theory that directed data collection and making sense of data.

As epistemic cognition is interconnected with each teacher candidate's experience in the classroom and influenced by work in the field, qualitative analysis was useful to report on types of thinking from a convenience sample of students. A convenience sample is appropriate to the population the sample is drawn, and by definition, not generalizable (Creswell, 2018). Therefore, the findings are to be considered preliminary and applicable in contexts in so far as the framework is applied with considerations of people, experience, context, time, and outcomes for learning about and through process focused inquiry.

To prompt candidates’ thinking about matters of epistemic concern, each engaged in deliberation and analysis of the nature of knowledge in science. This was accomplished by candidates reading and answering prompts about an authentic debate in the scientific community, originally developed by Kuhn et al., (2008). Two cases nestled in the domain of physical science were read by candidates for the purpose of engaging participants in critical thought and allow for reasoning about the nature of knowledge in science.

Following this engagement, a series of questions prompted the candidates to reflect on and select aims for knowledge and engage in reflexivity to align processes for planning science instruction. The candidates were also prompted to consider epistemic ideals through constraints and affordances as well as how to measure learning. Questions prompted the teacher candidates to reflect and make changes that would help a teacher achieve their aims. The written protocol then prompted the candidate to select aims and calibrate these with reliable processes for instruction and evaluation. Prompts solicited enablements (i.e., what can help make this aim possible) and constraints (i.e., what may prevent you from making this possible) for each aim.

Statement of Ethics Approval and Consent

This research was attributed the University of Minnesota IRB Study00015017. The IRB determined that the proposed activity is low risk and does not qualify as research involving human subjects as defined by DHHS and FDA regulations. All participants engaged in this study on a volunteer basis. Information regarding the purpose of the study, data collection, and the requirements of the participants was made clear to the interviewees in writing. Risk was limited to cognitive disequilibrium that may surface upon reflection of beliefs about knowledge and knowing in the context of teaching science. Each participant had the right to discontinue participation in the study at any time but was required to complete the course requirements that pertain to lesson planning, pre/post assessment, journaling, and reflection for completion of the course. An informed consent form was offered to each study participant outlining the above and completed forms were secured. Communication about this study in 2021 occurred before the university course began in March of 2021 and this process repeated in March of 2022 for the second semester this course was offered. The author is the principal investigator and course instructor where the participants of this study were drawn.

Data Collection

This study utilized course materials to include, direct observation, teacher candidates’ lesson planning, and course pre and post assessment. To meet the study’s aim to determine what is possible by teacher candidates to engage in epistemic cognition, document analysis isolated data from the course post-assessment data. Completion of the written assessment ranged between 1.5 and 2 hours per candidate. This was the primary source of data to determine the ways candidates engage in reflexivity. Candidates lesson plans were considered in relation to the stated action candidates shared in the written assessment.

Data Analysis

The analysis focused on examining instances of epistemic reflexivity and secondly, the identification of aims, reliable processes, ideals, affordances, constraints, and instructional adjustments.

Atlas Ti software was used to support the analysis process and develop findings to ensure accuracy and consistency in the interpretation of data. Over a period of five weeks, coding was conducted for 1–2 hours daily. Research memos were drafted to align codes in a consistent manner with concepts and principles outlined by Brownlee, Schraw, and Gregg (2017) for use of the (3R-EC) framework. Individual cases analyzed were reduced to what was reflected upon by candidates based on questions listed on the written protocol. How candidates engaged in epistemic reflexivity is based on the cognition of each individual in context of their experiences.

From the original data set (n = 18), access was permitted for six complete cases. Each of the two segments of the written documentation was coded independently. Codes were first developed through multiple readings of the data to identify any emergent patterns. In vivo quotations were selected from candidates’ thinking about knowledge issues in science. This was useful to craft three narratives that exemplified instances of reflexivity across the cases with themes that were unique to each (e.g., it is useful to teach the nature of science). Of the three narratives, open coding allowed for inductive categories where one was recognized as having tendencies coded as evaluativist thinking and another as absolutist reasoning as defined by Kuhn and Pease (2008). This framing was not intended but was worth further consideration in the preliminary results. The instances of evaluativist thinking are included in the results but not the focus of the narrative offered. The core aim was analysis using a deductive coding scheme based on the (3R-EC) framing. Epistemic reflexivity was coded into three categories (Reflection, Reflexive, Resolved) with each section aligned with discernment, deliberation, and dedication as reflected in the extant literature. This provided a surface level labeling of characteristics for deeper analysis based on principles from Browne, Schraw, and Gregg (2017). An example of reflexivity included consideration of teaching influence." (e.g., Reflection: Deliberation: Knowledge), beliefs about the nature of science (e.g., Reflexive: Deliberate: Ideas Grown), and the role of investigation in science teaching (e.g., Resolved action: Dedication: Investigation).

For each of the six individual cases, AIMs, REPs, Affordances, Constraints, and Evaluation were coded. Deductive coding based on the (3R-EC) framework (Brownlee et al., 2017) involved grouping codes into categories for epistemic aims and non-epistemic aims, epistemic reliable processes, affordances, constraints, and evaluative criteria. Descriptive coding permitted the labelling of codes from the above categories that were then applied to further examples. This approach reduced data to core ideas, a practice outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994). Visual reports and charts were made for each category (i.e., AIMS, Ideals, and Reliable Processes). Individual codes and quotations were reviewed across themes. Common themes were reviewed and codes that were infrequent or obscure were reviewed and recoded. Dissecting lines on the graphs were considered and lines that have no relationship revealed the codes were too specific. For example, after the first round of coding, there were 19 individual codes with 8 code groups across 6 participants. Codes were reduced to five broad categories where repetition of the concept occurred (i.e., drawing inferences and evaluation of data were combined under “critical thinking”). This process was repeated for each of the categories of the framework. Shared patterns were sought across the cases where candidates engage in epistemic cognition to identify, plan, and draw upon reliable instructional methods reflective of scientific processes of knowing or process-oriented inquiry.

Throughout the data collection, there were checks to the interpretation through analysis of extant literature using the concepts of epistemic aims, epistemic ideals, epistemic virtues, and epistemic reliable processes (Chinn et al., 2014). Each construct was considered against the data to ensure that interpretations were accurate and comprehensive within the context it was offered (i.e., science class). Lastly, each theme was considered in relation to bias and the author being too close to the data. Additional researcher memos were drafted to address and mitigate potential bias. These biases are noted in the context as well as in the study limitations.

This section answers the first research aim which required the exploration and identification of ways student teachers engaged in reflexivity for teaching elementary science using the (3R-EC) framework. It is organized into two sections, the first offers an illustration of one candidate’s engagement in reflexivity and the second shares the ways six teacher candidates answered specific prompts based on constructs from (Chinn et al., 2014) and organized by Lunn Brownlee et al. (2017) into the (3R-EC) framework. The themes found for aims, reliable processes and ideals are listed following the narrative.

The narrative below offers one illustrative example of a teacher candidates’ engagement in epistemic cognition. Categories representing aspects of epistemic reflexivity, namely dedication, discernment and deliberation illustrate what is possible for a teacher candidate to engage in epistemic cognition in order to make instructional choices. This reflexive engagement served as a warm-up for thinking about knowledge in science and prepared teacher candidates to answer specific prompts based on constructs from (Chinn et al., 2014) and organized by Lunn Brownlee et al. (2017) into the (3R-EC) framework.

Unless the context otherwise requires, all further references to the teacher candidate are noted as she/her or indicated by a letter and number in order to anonymize the responses. Codes are shared for the candidate with the first alphabetic letter references to each teacher candidate (e.g., A, B, C). The number following each letter shows how it is referenced using Atlas Ti Software. Definitions from the (3R-EC) framework with examples offered from this study are offered in Table 1 (see Table 1 near here).

Illustrative Example. The teacher candidate Amelie’s engagement in internal dialogue about two cases related to uncertainty revealed several key takeaways; each have potential impact on how curriculum and pedagogy is viewed (see Table 2 near here). Three insights that highlight Amelie’s reflexive thinking were identified in the inductive themes (a-c): a. consistent tools allow for knowledge development; b. scientific evidence supports personal decision making; c. The nature of scientific knowledge is an asset for learners.

Amelie began her deliberation about the nature of science by sharing:

Although science is uncertain and constantly changing, there has been a significant amount of research that has been conducted to determine the when, why, where, how, etc. of life as we know it. This being said, we are able to come close to certain about many different things in life. This is where the basic principles we teach in science come from.

When asked how we can become more certain she responded by sharing reliable processes [e.g. the science processes outlined in the NGSS, 2013] that are useful for the aim of research through inquiry.

One way that we can become more certain as to why dinosaurs went extinct is by researching more through inquiry and following the process skills. (Observing, classifying, communicating, etc.) Because there were no humans on the planet when this phenomenon happened, there are no firsthand accounts of what happened. We need to start with a question and work through the processes mentioned beforehand. We must use the resources that the Earth has given to us such as fossils and other materials.

We can also witness in the above that Amelie engaged in what Lunn Brownlee et al. (2022) explained as deliberation where an individual is “weighing up how aspects of their epistemic cognition” can be enacted (p. 689). Here she recognizes that scientific findings are supported through the use of artifacts and processes for investigation.

A. Consistent tools allow for knowledge development. Through the two cases analyzed on how science is conducted, Amelie affirmed her view that NOSK was uncertain but durable. Inquiry was espoused as a structural framework and reliable process (REP) for guiding teaching, with learning centered on the student experience. The tentative nature of science was articulated as an asset for child learning and scientific concepts provided a stable framework for elementary students to explore the NOSK. This deliberation allowed the candidate to consider the notion of uncertain with nuance. Amelie suggested that a reliable process for dealing with uncertainty is the use of consistent tools (i.e., scientific processes allow consistency in investigating uncertainty). She shared this sentiment in the following:

Another way we can teach science and embrace the changing nature is by teaching through concepts. Although specific scientific knowledge is always changing and some things can never be proven, the scientific concepts will always be consistent. The processes will never change. This being said, while we embrace the changing nature, one way to teach is by exploring new and uncertain things through the use of the consistent things in science. [A1:B1:10–14]

Amelie shared that the uncertainty that comes with planning for use of inquiry-based methods can be met by a framework or boundaries to guide investigations. The need for structure in planning for teaching was recognized as a counterweight to the lack of comfort that is real in the face of uncertainty. When Amelie deliberated about what could help develop more certainty around a debate, she noted a reliable process would be “conducting more tests by using the scientific processes” was one way. She continued to say:

This is a way for scientists to become more sure [sic] because they have more data to back up their claim (or disprove it). Additionally, by using the scientific processes they are able to test their hypothesis more legitimately.

C. NOS is an asset for learners. Amelie recognized that NOSK is an asset for children to learn in the science classroom, as illustrated in the quote below.

Science is a subject in which its nature is uncertain and changing. Even so, students learn science as it happens. They learn by actually doing and participating actively in what is happening in front of them. Students learn to embrace the changing environment and learn through it, rather than in spite of it. Overall, the fact that science is tentative and always changing adds an element to science that can help children learn better if taught properly.

The candidate served up and deliberated on topics related to the epistemic nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) and considered how to deal with the aspect of uncertainty that humans in general, and teachers new to inquiry, experience, and often seek to avoid due to lack of comfort (Duschl, 2008). Amelie shared that a reliable process is to structure science learning in a manner that mirrors the tentative nature of science.

Although science is uncertain and constantly changing, there has been a significant amount of research that has been conducted to determine the when, why, where, how, etc. of life as we know it. That being said, we are able to come close to certain about many different things in life. This is where the basic principles we teach in science come from. We use these to structure students learning in ways that reflect the uncertainty of scientific knowledge.

This epistemic deliberation about the nature of scientific knowledge led to discernment about inquiry being a reliable process for learning.

Using this as a basis, we are able to teach the uncertainty while still fostering knowledge. Because there is never certainty in anything, we have to make sure that we teach science to our students as such. There is so much for our students to discover based off of the ways we can structurally guide them and scaffold their learning, but the learning itself is done for and by the students. Beginning with students’ curiosity, I can allow my students to learn through inquiry based on ideas and topics they are curious about.

This engagement in reflexivity generated deliberation of knowledge more than discernment. Although aims tend to be the driving force for reflexive thinking (Barzilai & Chinn, 2014), there was discernment about epistemic aims of science as she expanded upon her thinking. Knowledge and decision making were implicitly identified as aims that involve teaching students using basic principles, namely teaching the NOSK as uncertain but durable. Amelie shared this discernment of aims by saying:

We [teachers] use them [scientific processes] to structure students learning in ways that reflect the uncertainty of scientific knowledge. Using this as a basis, we are able to teach the uncertainty while still fostering knowledge.

Through deliberation, Amelie resolved to teach through general conception of inquiry based upon her understanding of NOS as tentative, but durable.

(3R-EC) Themes

Epistemic Aims. Candidates were asked to identify epistemic aims after engaging in a reading that supported deliberation about the NOSK (i.e., An educator’s aim is to help students acquire knowledge. What is the intention of knowledge for children learning within/about science?). The results varied with candidates sharing both epistemic and non-epistemic aims for teaching science (see Table 3 near here).

Epistemic goals were categorized into six themes. Three were epistemic in nature. These include: gaining knowledge as a result of critical thinking (B1, G1, R1), whereas gaining knowledge can be accomplished through critical analysis of results from investigations. These can be seen in A1, B1, G1, and R1 who have the aim to critically analyze results and generate explanations. A similar aim was to seeking understanding (K2, G1, R1).

Three themes were categorized as non-epistemic aims and were listed as social considerations for developing knowledge such as learning how to work with others (G1, G2, R1), developing dispositions for being curious (A1, G1), and communicating and working with others (B1, G1) and asking scientific oriented questions (A1, B1, G1). Several on the non-epistemic aims were identified as personal dispositions that are necessary for the budding scientist (A1, G1).

Reliable Processes for Engagement in Science Instruction (REPs). When prompted (e.g., What is a reliable way for a child to achieve each intention in your classroom?), teacher candidates engaged in internal deliberation to align the aims they named with what they identified as reliable processes for engaging students in science (See Table 4 near here). Themes included strategies for supporting critical thought, which ranged from asking open ended questions (A1, B1) problem solving (A1, K1) making meaning (B1), and using the design process (A1, G1, B1). Communication strategies entailed engagement in think-pair-share (B1), science talks, doing experiments together, sharing information and working in groups (B1). Offering structured support was a theme identified through the use of organizing strategies like concept mapping (A1) to gather data and make meaning (B1). Science notebooks were also recognized as a tool to organize the work (E1). Offering a science fair and project-based learning (A1) were examples of engaging students in certain aims. Scientific inquiry-based learning (E1) and learning through the science process skills (G1, R1) and problem-solving skills and experimentation (K1, R1). Additionally, it was noted as important to teach the skills of guided inquiry and slowly remove supports (G1). The concept of epistemic climate was explained by the conditions in the classroom environment that allow for knowledge to develop. This includes motivation through motivating provocations (G1) and engagements (K1), offering authentic learning experiences (A1, E1). An epistemic climate conducive to learning allowed for teachers and students asking open-ended questioning (B1) and supporting student autonomy through choice in investigation (B1) and valuing “not knowing” or embracing uncertainty (G1).

Epistemic Ideals. In this study, epistemic ideals were not explicitly named for reflecting upon, but criteria for evaluating actions or the appropriateness of specific actions were solicited from teacher candidates. After candidates shared reliable processes to meet their aims, they were asked to call to mind criteria to evaluate if this worked or not (i.e., When choosing criteria to evaluate if you are meeting the aims with the strategies named above, what would be a good way to evaluate if your decision worked or not?). Reliable processes were documented as either as epistemic or non-epistemic goals. Each candidate answered the prompt criteria to evaluate with a supporting question, “How do you know you are doing it?” Teacher candidates’ criteria can be seen on Table 3 (See Table 5 near here). Reponses were classified based on whether the aim was epistemic or not and the REPs chosen with some common themes reported that align with broad themes about assessment. Examples include forming conclusions, using assessment through analysis of concept maps (B1), science journals (K1, E1), and the results of investigations (K1, E1), discussion (B1), and science talks (A1) as assessment information. The science process skills were named for targeting the reliable process of “understanding how scientists do science” (G1).

This section discusses the extent engagement in reflexivity was useful to plan and evaluate methods of science instruction in the elementary classroom. Nesting this in literature about epistemic reflexivity and perspectives on NOSK fulfills the second aim of the study.

Reflection and deliberation on nature of science (NOS) as tentative and uncertain allowed for teacher candidates to serve up a variety of aims (both epistemic and non-epistemic) for elementary science instruction - alongside processes that align with tenets of scientific inquiry. In some cases, aims were written as aspirations for engagement in inquiry without a detailed plan to achieve the results. Therefore, many aims were written broadly as epistemic ideals (e.g., analysis of data helps to draw conclusions). In many cases, the aims read as techniques that can also be classified as reliable processes for learning, one step removed from outlining a true epistemic goal (and by definition engagement in epistemic reflexivity). However, processes for engagement in science were recognized in a broader definition of science. A paraphrase of the NRC’s (2000) definition of science shared that science can be considered (a) content knowledge (b) the methods and processes to develop scientific discoveries (c) ideas about the nature of science. Each of these categories (a-c) was captured in the students written reflection.

Further, candidates did not directly espouse the goal shared in the scientific community to meet the aim of scientific literacy (DeBoer, 2000; NRC, 2013) but did name aspects that DeBoer (2000) shared as useful for what “the public should know about science in order to live more effectively with respect to the natural world” (p. 594). These are listed in the results section as reliable processes.

Given the questions and context, candidates’ reflexivity about NOS characteristics allowed for domain general reasoning about the relationship between pedagogy and knowledge development. The intention of the framework, said simply, is to help the brain know what it is looking for when teaching or being metacognitive about knowledge to engage in “critical thinking, argumentation, and inquiry” to obtain specific goals (Barzilai & Chinn, 2018, p. 354).

Additional research engaging student teachers in reflexivity through an explicit use of (3R-EC) framing may be useful in guiding student teachers in how to think about curriculum and teaching. The effort to support engagement in reflexivity allowed candidates to think through and serve up components of NOSK and permitted the teacher agency to set aims and align processes for teaching. Agency is an important component in a constructivist notion of inquiry (Kritt & Budwig, 2022).

When considering research on methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice, Kelly (2017) suggested that complementary frames need to be explored as this work is looked at in situ. Kuhn and her colleagues (2008) research may offer additional insight into how new teachers approach practice, not through epistemic reflexivity, but using a long-established frame for epistemic development based on argumentative reasoning. In the above results, aspects of teacher Amelie’s critical reflection can be recognized as evaluativist. This is where a definitive sense of certainty is recognized as not possible and evidence is evaluated as appropriate based on the context. Kuhn shares that the evaluativist sees certainty as “approachable through investigation and interpretation of evidence” and criteria of evaluativist thinking by locating “artifacts that provide clues” (p. 444). Both of these were recognized by Amelie in her justification. Epistemic reflexivity is useful for site specific situations and both frames for epistemic development may be useful when combined, especially with the goal to support all learners to move toward an evaluative form of cognitive deliberation.

Reflection and deliberation on the nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) as tentative and uncertain allowed for the teacher candidate in the exemplar case to serve up a variety of reliable processes that align with tenets of scientific inquiry. However, due to the questions asked of teacher candidates, specific reasoning demands for the elementary students were not specified on the written assessment. Therefore, interrogation of specific scientific claims will be necessary to determine in which situations certain processes are justified as reliable or unreliable.

Engagement in the (3R-EC) through analysis of cases of scientific findings allowed for an active constructivist process for learning about scientific inquiry, a strategy captured in the spirit of Lederman and Lederman’s (2019) suggestion that “questions can lead to discussions of subjectivity and tentativeness, as well as discussions about scientific inquiry” (p. 3). A challenge in studying a claim about pedagogy is that inquiry-based instruction is a value laden term. Therefore, subjective constructs can be used to define how this practice is enacted and many strategies can be found to support process focused learning. However, using a framework to consider nature of science, which are epistemic constructs, allow for critical thought on how the nature of the discipline aligns with pedagogy. The results suggest further exploration in ways that individuals can align thoughts and actions. Engagement in epistemic reflexivity about NOS is worth the effort to create conditions for students to inquire into inquiry.

There is evidence that candidates did not focus on planning through a singular step by step process for teaching science, but rather used a model that selects tools for inquiry based on the intentions. Reflexivity is ultimately conducive to supporting action that results in techniques that support inquiry guided methods for teaching. Student analysis of issues related to the tentative nature of scientific knowledge were useful to deliberate, much like entering into personal dialogue with a text is useful. It seemed to provide a starting point and foundation for thinking about instruction. Given that epistemic reflexivity is the result of a turn in the field of epistemic education away from the tentative nature of knowledge (Greene et al., 2016), science conceptions of tentativeness remain important perspectives of NOSK and need to be reconciled with constructs in epistemic education (i.e., epistemic reflexivity).

Limitations

Planning for data collection was disrupted by the global pandemic. Intentions to have candidates respond to questions about planning one specific lesson and observe teaching related to the studies aims were altered due to the closure of local schools in the first year of data collection. In response, the study relied on lesson planning and post-assessment data as described in the analysis and results instead of drawing from video and discourse in situ.

Using the (3R-EC) language and framework, in a domain general manner, was counter to the intentions of the framework for measuring situated aims that result in direct action (Kelly, 2017) and may have been a limitation for students to share specific aims for knowledge for teaching/learning. It is not known if the frame can be used independently by students to revise their aims, affordances, and evaluation, as well as how they act in the classroom. Nor is it known how much the students are motivated to care enough to engage in epistemic performance. This was a suggestion by Greene, Chinn and Deekins (2021) to propel this work forward. The framework requires unpacking and therefore, it was useful to be used alongside case analysis that were tailored to prompt thinking about the aims of science.

The questions used in the written assessment may have presented a limitation as the candidates did not receive training in defining the terms and were not required to answer the questions with only things related to epistemic aims as the language of the protocol was simplified for access (e.g., What are the intentions of teaching in the science classroom?). Explicit instruction in epistemic concepts and vocabulary may have supported targeted ability to reason about knowledge or gain a specific understanding or come closer to the truth of a matter. Students generally listed instructional strategies or behaviours. This did not allow for consideration of focused instruction on a specific knowledge claim or concept, with the exception of developing a hypothesis on how NOSK aligns with instruction and thinking through that hypothesis to consider aims, processes, and action. An additional limitation to this work is that the purposeful sample was from a small number of participants, which limited the ability to generalize the findings.

The preliminary findings from a sample of teacher candidates differ in what candidates’ set for goals with instances of epistemic ideals and reliable processes named that follow non-epistemic aims. The results point to a need for additional research of how teachers can consider their own epistemic performance on specific classroom inquiries.

Reflection and deliberation on the nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) as tentative and uncertain allowed for teacher candidates to serve up a variety of aims for elementary science instruction - alongside processes that align with scientific inquiry. Candidates’ reflexivity about NOS resulted in epistemic cognition about the relationship between pedagogy and knowledge development, but due to the context of a university classroom, results were often stated in a domain general manner. Themes include learning strategies that support student agency and autonomy supportive teaching as well as science knowledge as skeptical, subjective/objective and evolving; each are important constructs for teaching through inquiry-based methods. Interrogation of specific claims are necessary to determine in which situations certain processes are justified as reliable or unreliable.

Results suggest that epistemic reflexivity may be supported by teacher candidates’ consideration about NOSK. Interrogation on how specific characteristics of science can play a role in instructional practice can be explored as well. Teachers are professionals who have a responsibility to support the next generation of scientists and lay persons to become knowledgeable about what counts as the development of knowledge. There are indictors that evaluativist thinking about science supports capacity to engage in this work. Engagement in epistemic cognition through candidates’ own decisions honors the call that Schwab (1962) first made to support science education as “enquiry into enquiry” - a goal that is relevant today.

Competing interests

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to extend thanks to the teacher candidates at University of Minnesota Crookston who have provided valuable input.

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from me, the corresponding author, [jf] upon reasonable request.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D. and Tuan, H. (2004), Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Sci. Ed., 88: 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Abd-EI-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
Adibeli Sahin, E. & Deniz, H. (2016). Exploring Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions about the Developmental Appropriateness and Importance of Nature of Science Aspects. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(9), 2673–2698.
Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (2010). Experienced teachers’ strategies for assessing nature of science conceptions in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(6), 723–745.
Allen, C., Espey, J., Marks, A., Skipper, M. (2021). Harnessing Science for a Sustainable Future: Narrowing the Policy, Research, and Community Divide. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15741606.v1
Archer, M. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. GB: Cambridge University Press – M.U.A.
Avery, L. & Meyer, D. (2012). Teaching Science as Science Is Practiced: Opportunities and Limits for Enhancing Preservice Elementary Teachers' Self-Efficacy for Science and Science Teaching. School Science and Mathematics. 112. 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00159.x.
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. (2017). On the Goals of Epistemic Education: Promoting Apt Epistemic Performance. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968
Bendixen, L. (2016). Teaching for epistemic change in elementary classrooms. In Jeffrey Alan Greene (Ed.), Handbook of epistemic cognition 281–299. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brownlee, J., Schraw, G., & Berthelsen, D. (2011). Personal epistemology and teacher education. Routledge.
Brownlee, J. and Purdie, N. and Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education 6(2):247–268.
Cairns, D. (2019). Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achievement in an inquiry-based learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2113–2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1660927
Chinn, C., Buckland, L., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
Chinn, C., Rinehart, R., & Buckland, L. (2014). Epistemic cognition & evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp, & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical & applied perspectives from cognitive science & the educational sciences (pp. 425–453). MIT Press.
Cofré, H. L., Vergara, C., Gonzalez-Weil, C., Santibáñez, D., Ahumada, G., Furman, M., Podesta, M. E., Camacho, J., Gallego, R., & Pérez, R. (2015). Science teacher education in South America: the case of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 45–63.
Creswell J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crowther, D., Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2005). Understanding the True Meaning of Nature of Science. Science and Children., 43(2).
d'Agnese, V. (2017). Reclaiming Education in the Age of PISA: Challenging OECD’s Educational Order (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315269436
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J.A. Boydston (Ed.). The later works of John Dewey (Volume 12, pp. 1–528). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony. Review of Research in Education. 32, pp. 268–291. AERA. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X07309371
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology.
Science Education, 85, 554–567.
Elliott, J. (2006). Educational Research as a Form of Democratic Rationality. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 40, No. 2, (169–185), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2006.00510.x
Fives, H. (2011). One preservice teacher’s developing personal epistemology about teaching and the explicit connection of those beliefs to future practice.
Feucht, F. C., & Bendixen, L. D. (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: A welcome and guide for the teacher. In L. D. & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research and implications for practice (pp. 3–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feucht, F., Brownlee J. & Schraw, G. (2017) Moving Beyond Reflection: Reflexivity and Epistemic Cognition in Teaching and Teacher Education, Educational Psychologist, 52:4, 234–241, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1350180
Greene, J. A., Chinn, C. A., & Deekens, V. M. (2021). Experts’ reasoning about the replication crisis: Apt epistemic performance and actor-oriented transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1860992
Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Handbook of Epistemic Cognition. Routledge.
Greene, J. A., & Yu, S. B. (2013). Modeling and measuring epistemic cognition: A qualitative re-investigation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 12–18.
Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53–90.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofer, B. K. & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 225–254). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 129–163
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The
psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological
theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to
learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140
Kelly, G. (2017) Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Handbook of Epistemic Cognition. (pp. 393–408). Routledge.
Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545–565.
Kritt, D.W., & Budwig, N. (2022). The Future of Constructivist Education. Human Development, 66, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1159/000526275
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D. & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–25.
Lederman, N. & Lederman, J. (2019). Lederman and Lederman Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0002-0
Lederman, N. & Lederman, J. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, (vol. II, pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267.ch30.
Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207
Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721–734.
Lee, S., Luan, H., Lee, M., Chang, H., Liang, J., Lee, Y., Lin, T., Wu, A., Chiu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2021). Measuring epistemologies in science learning and teaching: A systematic review of the literature. Science Education, 105(5), 880–907.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lunn Brownlee, J. M., Bourke, T., Rowan, L., Ryan, M., Churchward, P., Walker, S., L’Estrange, L., Berge, A., & Johansson, E. (2022). How epistemic reflexivity enables teacher educators’ teaching for diversity: Exploring a pedagogical framework for critical thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3789
Lunn Brownlee, J. M., Ferguson, L. E., & Ryan, M. (2017). Changing Teachers’ Epistemic Cognition: A New Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Reflexivity. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1333430
Lunn Brownlee, J. M., Rowan, L., Ryan, M., Walker, S., Bourke, T., & Churchward, P. (2019). Researching teacher educators’ preparedness to teach to and about diversity: investigating epistemic reflexivity as a new conceptual framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2018.1555794
Lunn Brownlee, J. & Schraw, G. (2017). Reflection and reflexivity: A focus on higher order thinking in teachers' personal epistemologies. In Schraw, G, Olafson, L, Lunn Brownlee, J, & Vander Veldt Brye, M (Eds.) Teachers' personal epistemologies: Evolving models for informing practice (Current Perspectives on Cognition, Learning and Instruction). Information Age Publishing, United States of America, pp. 409–427.
Mason, L. & Scrivani, L. (2004). Enhancing students’ mathematical beliefs: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 14, 153–176.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2017). The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Science at Grades 4, 8 and 12. NCES 2016162.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2021). Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2020). NSTA Position Statement:<?ColorInfoStart FFFFFF?> <?ColorInfoEnd FFFFFF?>STEM Education Teaching and Learning.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2018). NSTA Position Statement: Elementary School Science. (2018). NSTA.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2016). NSTA Position Statement: Teaching Science in the Context of Societal and Personal Issues.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Nowikowski, S. (2017). Successful with STEM? A qualitative case study of pre-service teacher perceptions. Qualitative Report. 22. 2312–2333. 10.46743/2160–3715/2017.2893.
Oliver, M., McConney, A., & Woods-McConney, A. (2019). The efficacy of inquiry-based instruction in science: A comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09901-0
Olson, J., Tippett, C., Milford, T., Ohana, C., & Clough, M. P. (2015). Science teacher education in a North American context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 7–28.
Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2010). Beyond epistemology: assessing teachers' epistemological and ontological worldviews.
Parkinson, M., & Maggioni, L. (2017). The potential of course interventions to change preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs. Eds. Schraw, Lunn Brownlee, Olafson, Vander Veldt Brye in Teachers’ Personal Epistemologies: Evolving Models for Informing Practice.
Perla, R. J., & Carifio, J. (2008). Can our Conception of the Nature of Science be Tentative Without Qualification? Journal of Educational Thought, 42(2), 127–150.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Perry, W. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University.
Roth, G., & Weinstock, M. (2013). Teachers’ epistemological beliefs as an antecedent of autonomy-supportive teaching. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9338-x
Ryan, M., Rowan, L., Lunn Brownlee, J., Bourke, T., L’Estrange, L., Walker, S., & Churchward, P. (2022). Teacher education and teaching for diversity: A call to action. Teaching Education, 33(2), 194–213.
Ryan, M. & Bourke, T. (2013). The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22(3), 411–423. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2012.717193
Tabak, I. &. Weinstock, M. (2011). If there is no one right answer? In Jo Brownlee, Gregory J. Schraw & Donna Berthelsen (eds.), Personal epistemology and teacher education. New York: Routledge. pp. 61–180.
Tsai, C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers' beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 771–783.
Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 424–432.
Schommer, M. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 355–370.
Schommer, M. (1992, October). Predictors of epistemological beliefs: Comparing adults with only a secondary education to adults with post-secondary education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western American Educational Research Association, Chicago
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
Short, K. (2009). Inquiry as a stance on curriculum. In Garber, Sand Davidson (Eds.), International Perspectives on Inquiry Learning. (pp. 1–16). London, UK. John Cat.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–104). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sweeney, S. J. (2010). Factors affecting early elementary (K-4) teachers’ introduction of the nature of science: A national survey. (Unpublished PhD). University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
VanSledright, B., & Limón, M. (2006). Learning and Teaching Social Studies: A Review of Cognitive Research in History and Geography. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 545–570). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weinstock, M. Kienhues, D. Feucht, F. & Ryan, M. (2017) Informed Reflexivity: Enacting Epistemic Virtue, Educational Psychologist, 52:4, 284–298, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1349662
Wendell, K. B., Swenson, J. E., & Dalvi, T. S. (2019). Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers’ approaches to learning and teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 956–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21541
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study research: Designs and methods (5th ed.) Sage Publications.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Teacher Candidates’ Epistemic Reflexivity about Elementary Science Instruction

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Theoretical Frame

Inquiry as a Method of Instruction

A. Epistemic Education

Epistemic Reflexivity

B. The Tentative Nature of Science

Methods

Results

(3R-EC) Themes

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

Competing interests

Acknowledgement

Availability of data and material

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1