Towards a deeper understanding of epistemic beliefs development: the contribution of threshold concepts and implications for understanding the ways of knowing and being of experienced educational developers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In education, the term "development" is used in many contexts. For example, we refer to the "development of student learning," the "development of epistemic beliefs," and the "development of expertise." The term "development" is also central to our identity and work as educational developers. The frequent use of this term suggests a commonly agreed-upon understanding; however, closer analysis reveals that the definition of this term remains vague. Drawing on literature in the areas of epistemic beliefs and threshold concepts, this dissertation intends to elucidate the notion of development by exploring what development is and how it happens. Insights from this research are then used to examine the transformation of educational developers' ways of knowing and being and to explore the meaning of development in educational development. The dissertation consists of three manuscripts. The purpose of Manuscript 1 is to propose an explanation of epistemic beliefs development. Understanding epistemic development is crucial, for epistemic beliefs shape the perspectives from which we make meaning of the world (Kegan, 1982; 1994; 2000). Drawing on Kegan's Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making, as well as research in biology, philosophy, and psychology, this manuscript identifies the principles of development that underlie and thereby unify these fields. In proposing an explanation of epistemic beliefs development, the manuscript contributes to the current endeavour in the field to elaborate an integrative model of epistemic beliefs development. Manuscript 2 pursues the purpose of the dissertation of gaining a better understanding of development by using threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) as a lens for clarifying the little-understood issue of how the development of epistemic beliefs proceeds between stages. Understanding the process of transformation between stages is vital for educators, since this is where much of our work with learners occurs. The characteristics often used to describe threshold concepts reveal their potential to contribute to the development of epistemic beliefs; however, threshold concepts have hitherto not been situated within a developmental framework. By relating the principles of development explored in Manuscript 1 to the characteristics of threshold concepts, this manuscript proposes threshold concepts as potentially powerful sources of epistemic beliefs development and clarifies the cognitive and affective nature of transformation between stages. Implications for educators' role of facilitating learning are also explored. Manuscript 3 is the report of a multiple case study designed to identify threshold concepts in educational development. As there is currently a collective effort in the field of educational development to conceptualise the identity and roles of educational developers, threshold concepts are used as a lens for uncovering the ways of knowing and ways of being of educational developers. Semi-structured interviews with four experienced educational developers from Canadian universities were conducted to identify the ideas that have been threshold concepts for them in their careers as educational developers. A cross-case analysis of threshold concepts identified within each case revealed three categories of common threshold concepts: (a) Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups, (b) Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change, and (c) Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals. The dissertation conclusion summarises and weaves together findings from the three manuscripts. A model capturing the salient insights about development that emerged from this research is presented. These insights are then related to the threshold concepts identified by experienced educational developers in Manuscript 3 in an effort to explore the meaning of development in educational development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».