Saskatchewan Physics Teachers’ Epistemic Beliefs: A Glimpse Into an Under Examined Area of Teachers’ Professional Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ beliefs about knowledge in their subject deeply impact their classroom practice. This study analyzed the epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge held by Saskatchewan high school physics teachers using a newly designed framework of epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge. Results suggest that teachers’ epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge are relatively consistent within the areas of certainty and structure of physics knowledge; most participants believed that physics knowledge was tentative and subject to change as well as coherent and connected in its structure. However, participants rarely agreed on the source and content of physics knowledge. As teachers’ beliefs likely influence the way a curriculum document is interpreted and implemented, students across the province of Saskatchewan might develop very different understandings of physics knowledge due to variations in teachers’ epistemic beliefs. The findings of this study provide insights into areas of professional development for teachers and pre-service teacher instruction. The article concludes with suggestions for educating teachers to better understand their own epistemic beliefs about knowledge in the subjects they teach as well as the impact these beliefs may have on their classroom. Key words: epistemic beliefs; physics education; teacher education Les croyances des enseignants quant à leur connaissance de la matière ont un impact important sur leur pratique pédagogique. S’appuyant sur un nouveau cadre des croyances épistémiques portant sur les connaissances en physique, cette étude a analysé les croyances épistémiques qu’ont des enseignants de la physique au secondaire en Saskatchewan quant à leurs connaissances en physique. Les résultats indiquent que les croyances épistémiques des enseignants sont relativement homogènes dans les domaines touchant la certitude et la structure des connaissances en physique, la plupart des participants ayant indiqué qu’ils croient que les connaissances en physique sont provisoires, sujettes aux changements et cohérentes et liées sur le plan structurel. Toutefois, les participants étaient rarement en accord quant à la source et au contenu des connaissances en physique. Étant donné qu’il est probable que les croyances des enseignants influencent l’interprétation et la mise en œuvre de matériel pédagogique, il se peut que les élèves de partout en Saskatchewan développent des idées très différentes des connaissances en physique en raison des variations dans les croyances épistémiques de leurs enseignants. Les résultats de cette étude permettent de mieux comprendre certains domaines du développement professionnel pour enseignants et de la formation des étudiants en pédagogie. L’article se termine par des suggestions visant une formation des enseignants qui leur permettrait de mieux comprendre leurs propres croyances épistémiques des connaissances de la matière qu’ils enseignent ainsi que l’impact que pourraient avoir ces croyances dans leur salle de classe. Mots clés : croyances épistémiques; enseignement de la physique; formation des enseignants
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".