Epistemological Beliefs of Preservice Teachers

Abstract

This study examined the epistemological beliefs of preservice teachers, from naïve to sophisticated, from five different departments of the faculty of education in a Turkish university. By using the adapted form of the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire, social studies, science, Turkish, mathematics, and classroom preservice teachers were surveyed and their epistemological belief levels were determined in terms of department and gender variables. Epistemological beliefs were examined in three dimensions: beliefs that pertain to learning depending on effort, beliefs that pertain to learning depending on ability, and beliefs that pertain to there being only one unchanging truth. The analysis indicated that generally all in departments, preservice teachers have sophisticated beliefs regarding the first two dimensions of the questionnaire. For the third dimension, they seem be at medium level. The results show that for the second dimension females have more sophisticated beliefs than males. For the other two dimensions there was no significant difference between females and males. A significant difference was found only for the first dimension and only between mathematics and classroom preservice teachers.

Mathematical Epistemic Beliefs: Through the Gender Lens

“…Potential gender-related patterns in EBs have been widely researched, but mainly in relation to students' EBs (e.g., Marzooghi et al, 2008;Phan, 2008;Tang, 2010). Of the very few empirical studies that explored teachers' EBs in relation to gender, the majority of the studies (e.g., Chan, 2004;Lee et al, 2013;Baydar, 2020) are not specific to mathematics. While several empirical studies that explored mathematics teachers' beliefs through the gender lens were found (e.g., Li, 2004;Clark et al, 2014;de Kraker-Pauw et al, 2016), these beliefs are concerned with, for example, mathematics teaching and learning in general or beliefs about students' mathematical abilities, and not related to MEBs.…”

Investigating the Relationships Between University Students’ Epistemological Beliefs and Learning Approaches: A Path Analysis Study

“…Students’ relationships with knowledge and cognitive processes related to learning are closely related to their epistemological beliefs and learning approaches (Nisbet & Shucksmith, 1986; Perry, 1981; Republic of Turkey Board of Education, 2017; Rodríguez & Cano, 2007; Schommer, 1990). In the literature, studies in the higher education level focus on the relationship between these two variables or their relationships with other variables such as gender, grade, age, personality characteristics, conceptions of learning, self-regulated learning, motivation, and problem-solving skills (Baydar, 2020; Chan, 2003; Chiu et al, 2016; Dawson, 2006; Gronostay, 2019; Kanadlı & Akbaş, 2015; Karataş & Erden, 2017; Khalid et al, 2021; Nussbaum & Bendixen, 2003; Phan, 2008; Rodríguez & Cano, 2006, 2007; Şahin-Taşkın, 2012; Zhu et al, 2008). This study created a theoretical model that hypothesizes that there are significant relationships between epistemological beliefs and learning approaches based on the literature and tested this model by controlling the effect of personality types on learning approaches.…”

Perfiles de pensamiento docente de los estudiantes de ciencia y tecnología del máster de enseñanza secundaria

“…Consideramos que la formación adecuada del profesorado contribuye a desarrollar una enseñanza de mayor calidad en todos los niveles de la educación (Kind, 2016) y que el pensamiento docente desempeña una función mediadora en las prácticas de enseñanza, de modo que detrás de cada tipo de actuación docente subyace un modelo de pensamiento sobre los procesos educativos (Abell, 2007;Demirci, 2015;Baydar, 2020). Por ello estamos trabajando en un proyecto de investigación, centrado en tratar de conocer mejor el pensamiento educativo del alumnado del MAES, para elaborar y ensayar propuestas educativas derivadas de ese conocimiento, que ayuden a mejorar la formación inicial del profesorado de ciencia y tecnología (Levitt, 2002;Solís et al, 2013;Min et al, 2020).…”