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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".