Yesterday on the train to Oxford and back to Paddington, I re-read David Moshman’s 2007 article. Interesting especially because of two fresh insights of his that I hadn’t noticed in my first reading:
First, that children develop epistemic cognition but only thw type that pertains to particular judgments and specific matters. Only in adolescence and adulthood do general epistemological theories develop–i.e., epistemological worldviews and beliefs.
Secondly, that academic disciplines (even Kuhn’s 5 domains of judgments) differ from Moshman’s three domains which develop even in childhood. There may be a need to make this distinction in my paper.
I’ve also been studying the statistical analysis provided by Tony Zosa. Some patterns and trends are unpredicted and therefore interesting, giving rise to questions:
1. Why do the older and experienced teachers relatively more “naïve” than their younger, less experienced colleagues? They tend to question authority less. They tend to view scientific knowledge as more certain and scientific truth more attainable as long as there’s effort. They seem more concerned about students learning facts than understanding them or learning how to learn on their own. Finally, they seem to believe that academic success is contingent on and limited by innate ability!
2. Why do teachers teaching in the higher grades and year levels (especially those in high school) relatively more sophisticated in their epistemological beliefs? Is this a function of the material they tackle etc.?3. What about gender, discipline, conceptions about teaching/learning, and religiosity? Still pending.
I wish I could just stop everything and focus on these questions. We haven’t even looked at Part 1 and Part 3!
strugglingSCHOLAR 