- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Using continua to analyze qualitative data investigating epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge: Visualizing beliefs

Ellen Watson1,* and Gregory Thomas2

  • 1Faculty of Education, Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
  • 2Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

  • *watsone@brandonu.ca
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010106 – Published 15 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010106

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Qualitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination.] Epistemic beliefs about physics are most often investigated using quantitative instruments that reflect binary conceptualizations of those beliefs. This study reports from a qualitative study which used continua to represent the epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge of sixteen Western Canadian, high school physics teachers. Unlike other research, this study did not intend to compare epistemic beliefs to any specific epistemology of science. This article presents a novel, more nuanced means of analyzing interview data to construct profiles to describe epistemic beliefs. The epistemic belief profiles of the physics teachers in this study reflect each of four areas of a literature-derived theoretical framework regarding epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge. These four areas are individuals’ beliefs about the (a) source, (b) content, (c) certainty, and (d) structure of physics knowledge. The use of thematic analysis research methods and reasons for the placement of participants along continua are discussed. Potential classroom applications of this research include prompting discussions about student epistemic beliefs and collecting more nuanced representations of students’ epistemic beliefs to inform teaching.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Qualitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination

Physics Education Research (PER) uses various research methods classified under qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. These approaches help researchers understand physics education phenomena and advance our efforts to produce better PER.

Article Text

References (97)

  1. D. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cognit. Instr. 12, 151 (1994).
  2. W. M. Roth and A. Roychoudhury, The nature of scientific knowledge, knowing and learning: The perspectives of four physics students, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 27 (1993).
  3. A. Elby, Getting started with research on epistemologies, and expectations, in Getting Started in PER, Vol. 2, edited by C. Henderson and K. A. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2011), pp. 1–33, https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=10578.
  4. K. Johnson and S. Willoughby, Changing epistemological beliefs with nature of science implementations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010110 (2018).
  5. J. S. Martins and W. E. Lindsay, Evaluation of high school student responses to the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010132 (2022).
  6. D. Woitkowski, L. Rochell, and A. B. Bauer, German university students’ views of nature of science in the introductory phase, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010118 (2021).
  7. B. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning, Rev. Educ. Res. 67, 88 (1997).
  8. H. Fives and M. Buehl, The functions of beliefs: Teachers’ personal epistemology on the pinning block, in Teachers’ Personal Epistemologies: Evolving Models For Informing Practice, edited by G. Schraw, J. Brownlee, L. Olafson, and M. Vanderveldt (Information Age Publishing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, 2017), pp. 25–54.
  9. B. K. Hofer, Personal epistemology as a psychological, and educational construct: An introduction, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge, and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 2012), pp. 3–14.
  10. B. K. Hofer and G. M. Sinatra, Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: Musings on an emerging field, Metacogn. Learn. 5, 113 (2010).
  11. B. K. Hofer and L. D. Bendixen, Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions, in APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 1: Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2012), pp. 227–256.
  12. M. Schommer, Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 6, 293 (1994).
  13. G. R. Dolphin and J. W. Tillotson, ‘Uncentering’ teacher beliefs: The expressed epistemologies of secondary science teachers and how they relate to teacher practice, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 10, 21 (2015), http://www.ijese.net/makale/145.html.
  14. S. W. Y. Lee, H. Luan, M.‐H. Lee, H.‐Y. Chang, J.‐C. Liang, Y.‐H. Lee, T.‐J. Lin, A.‐H. Wu, Y.‐J. Chiu, and C.‐C. Tsai, Measuring epistemologies in science learning and teaching: A systematic review of the literature, Sci. Educ. 105, 880 (2021).
  15. L. López-Banet and M. Martínez-Carmona, Preservice chemistry teachers’ epistemic beliefs after a student-centred approach training programme, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 17, em2045 (2021).
  16. S. Erduran and E. Kaya, Epistemic beliefs and teacher education, in Transforming Teacher Education Through the Epistemic Core of Chemistry (Springer, New York, 2019), pp. 51–80.
  17. F. Feucht, The epistemic climate of Mrs. M’s science lesson about the woodlands as an ecosystem: A classroom-based research study, in Teachers’ Personal Epistemologies: Evolving Models for Informing Practice, edited by G. Schraw, J. L. Brownlee, L. Olafson, and M. Vanderveldt (Information Age Publishing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, 2017), pp. 55–84.
  18. C. H. Leng, N. Abedalaziz, A. V. Orleans, Z. Naimie, and A. Islam, Teaching practices of Malaysian science teachers: Role of epistemic beliefs and implicit intelligence, Malaysian Online J. Educ. Sci. 6, 48 (2018), https://jummec.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/12445.
  19. T. Rosman, A. K. Mayer, S. Merk, and M. Kerwer, On the benefits of ‘doing science’: Does integrative writing about scientific controversies foster epistemic beliefs?, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 58, 85 (2019).
  20. A. Baytelman, K. Iordanou, and C. P. Constantinou, Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 1199 (2020).
  21. J. S. C. Leung, Students’ adherences to epistemic understanding in evaluating scientific claims, Sci. Educ. 104, 164 (2020).
  22. W. K. Adams, C. E. Wieman, K. K. Perkins, and J. Barbera, Modifying and validating the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for use in chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 85, 1435 (2008).
  23. L. Chen, S. Xu, H. Xiao, and S. Zhou, Variations in students’ epistemological beliefs towards physics learning across majors, genders, and university tiers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010106 (2019).
  24. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  25. E. Adibelli and J. Bailey, Exploring the factors contributing to preservice elementary teachers’ epistemological worldviews about teaching science, in Teachers’ Personal Epistemologies: Evolving Models for Informing Practice, edited by G. Schraw, J. L. Brownlee, L. Olafson, and M. Vanderveldt (Information Age Publishing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, 2017), pp. 291–322.
  26. E. Watson, The slippery business of measuring beliefs: Lessons from a failed attempt at developing an instrument to measure teachers’ epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge, E. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 119 (2020), https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/20294.
  27. J. Gouvea, V. Sawtelle, and A. Nair, Epistemological progress in physics and its impact on biology, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010107 (2019).
  28. K. Shar, R. S. Russ, and J. T. Laverty, Student epistemological framing on paper-based assessments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020101 (2020).
  29. M. Schommer-Aikins, An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (Routledge, New York, 2012), pp. 103–118.
  30. H. Lohse-Bossenz, T. Billion-Kramer, and F. Grunig, Developing subject-specific teaching beliefs: The mediating role of teachers’ domain-specific epistemic beliefs., in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada (2019).
  31. M. M. Buehl, P. A. Alexander, and P. K. Murphy, Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general?, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27, 415 (2002).
  32. B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, Personal Epistemology (Routledge, New York, 2012).
  33. W. G. Perry Jr., Forms of Intellectual, and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1970).
  34. M. Belenky, B. Clinchy, N. Goldberger, and J. Tarule, Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind (Basic Books, New York, 1986).
  35. P. King and K. Kitchener, Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1994).
  36. M. Schommer, Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students, J. Educ. Psychol. 85, 406 (1993).
  37. M. Schommer, Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension, J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 498 (1990).
  38. J. Schiefer, P. A. Edelsbrunner, A. Bernholt, N. Kampa, and A. Nehring, Epistemic beliefs in science—A systematic integration of evidence from multiple studies, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 1541 (2022).
  39. L. Olafson and G. Schraw, Beyond epistemology: Assessing teachers’ epistemological and ontological worldviews, in Personal Epistemology in the Classroom (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010), pp. 516–552.
  40. H. Deniz, Personal epistemology, nature of science, and instructional practice: Towards defining a meaningful relationship, in Teachers’ Personal Epistemologies: Evolving Models for Informing Practice, edited by G. Schraw, J. L. Brownlee, L. Olafson, and M. Vanderveldt (Information Age Publishing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, 2017), pp. 169–190.
  41. S. Ozgelen, Exploring the relationships among epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness and nature of science, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 7, 409 (2012), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ990526.
  42. J. Firestone, S. Wong, J. Luft, and D. Fay, The nature of science or the nature of teachers: Beginning science teachers’ understanding of NOS, in Advances in Nature of Science Research, edited by M. Khine (Springer, New York, 2012), pp. 189–206.
  43. V. Kite, S. Park, K. McCance, and E. Seung, Secondary science teachers’ understandings of the epistemic nature of science practices, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 32, 243 (2021).
  44. R. Khishfe, Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 974 (2014).
  45. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 997 (2020).
  46. D. Allchin, Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science, Sci. Educ. 95, 518 (2011).
  47. A. Elby, J. Frederiksen, C. Schwarz, and B. White, Epistemological beliefs assessment for physical science (EPABS). Available at http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/home.htm#:~:text=EBAPS%20is%20a%20forced%2Dchoice. Accessed September 27, 2018.
  48. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
  49. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles for physics students, Sci. Educ. 7, 553 (1998).
  50. D. Wheeler, The development and construct validation of the epistemological beliefs survey for mathematics, Ph.D. thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 2007 (unpublished) https://shareok.org/handle/11244/7625.
  51. R. T. Vecaldo, Dimensionality and predictive validity of Schommer epistemological questionnaire among Philippine pre-service teachers, Int. J. Instr. 13, 767 (2020).
  52. K.-W. Chan and R. G. Elliott, Exploratory study of epistemological beliefs of Hong Kong teacher education students: Resolving conceptual and empirical issues, Asia-Pac. J. Teacher Educ. 28, 225 (2000).
  53. P. Wood and C. Kardash, Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 2002), pp. 231–260.
  54. D. L. Bandalos and S. J. Finney, Factor analysis, in The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (Routledge, New York, 2019), pp. 98–122.
  55. A. S. Beavers, J. W. Lounsbury, J. K. Richards, S. W. Huck, G. J. Skolits, and S. L. Esquivel, Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research, Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 18, 6 (2013).
  56. S. Markic and I. Eilks, A comparison of student teachers’ beliefs from four different science teaching domains using a mixed methods design, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 589 (2012).
  57. J. H. van Driel, A. M. W. Bulte, and N. Verloop, Using the curriculum emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform, J. Curric. Stud. 40, 107 (2008).
  58. G. Clarebout, J. Elen, L. Luyten, and H. Bamps, Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisited, Educ. Res. Eval. 7, 53 (2001).
  59. P. Mulhall and R. Gunstone, Views about learning physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to teaching physics, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 23, 429 (2012).
  60. E. Watson, Connecting epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge and curriculum concerns in Saskatchewan: A mixed analysis study (University of Alberta, Edmonton, 2021), https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-0yef-pg89.
  61. A. Yavuz, Do students trust in mathematics or intuition during physics problem solving? An epistemic game perspective, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 11, 633 (2014).
  62. P. K. Murphy and P. A. Alexander, Interrogating the relation between conceptual change and epistemic beliefs, in Handbook of Epistemic Cognition, J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, and I. Bråten, Eds., (Routledge, New York, 2016), pp. 439–459.
  63. G. Sinatra, Thoughts on knowledge about thinking about knowledge, in Handbook of Epistemic Cognition, edited by J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, and I. Bråten (Routledge, New York, 2016), pp. 479–491.
  64. B. K. Hofer, Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 378 (2000).
  65. P. Godfrey-Smith, Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science, 2nd ed. (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2021).
  66. M. Chevrier, K. R. Muis, G. J. Trevors, R. Pekrun, and G. M. Sinatra, Exploring the antecedents and consequences of epistemic emotions, Learn. Instr. 63, 101209 (2019).
  67. K. R. Muis and B. Gierus, Beliefs about knowledge, knowing, and learning: Differences across knowledge types in physics, J. Exp. Educ. 82, 408 (2014).
  68. K. Tobin and C. J. McRobbie, Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum, Sci. Educ. 6, 355 (1997).
  69. B. Davis, Inventions of Teaching (Routledge, New York, 2004).
  70. N. C. Burbules and M. C. Linn, Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 13, 227 (1991).
  71. B. Gregory, Inventing Reality: Physics as Language (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1988).
  72. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996), 3rd ed.
  73. C. Sin, Epistemology, sociology, and learning and teaching in physics, Sci. Educ. 98, 342 (2014).
  74. L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 2006).
  75. G. Pospiech, Framework of mathematization in physics from a teaching perspective, in Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), pp. 1–38.
  76. G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B.-S. Eylon, Mathematics in Physics Education (Springer, New York, 2019).
  77. K. R. Muis, Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in the context of mathematics problem solving, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33, 177 (2008).
  78. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations how students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  79. A. Shtulman, How lay cognition constrains scientific cognition, Philos Compass 10, 785 (2015).
  80. B. Wei and N. Chen, Agency at work: Two beginning science teachers’ stories in a context of curriculum reform in China, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 1287 (2019).
  81. S. Brahmia, Mathematization in introductory physics, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University Graduate School, New Brunswick, 2014.
  82. C. C. Tsai, Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students’ views, Sci. Educ. 91, 222 (2006).
  83. E. Watson, Saskatchewan physics teachers’ epistemic beliefs: A glimpse into an under examined area of teachers’ professional education, Alberta J. Educ. Res. 67, 53 (2021).
  84. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  85. M. Maguire and B. Delahunt, Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars, AISHE-J 3, 33501 (2017), https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.
  86. L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules, Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria, Int. J. Qual. Methods 16, 1 (2017).
  87. E. Guba and Y. Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evaluation (Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA, 1989).
  88. A. K. Shenton, Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Educ. Inf. Technol. 22, 63 (2004).
  89. N. K. Denzin, Triangulation, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford, UK, 2015).
  90. D. J. Sloane, Visualizing qualitative information, Qual. Rep. 14, 204 (2009).
  91. L. Daniel and A. Onwuegbuzie, Reliability and qualitative data: Are psychometric concepts relevant within an interpretivist research paradigm?, in Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN (2002), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED471306.
  92. A. Onwuegbuzie and W. Dickson, Mixed methods analysis and information visualization: Graphical display for effective communication of research results, Qual. Rep. 13, 204 (2008).
  93. S. Verdinelli and N. I. Scagnoli, Data display in qualitative research, Int. J. Qual. Methods 12, 359 (2013).
  94. P. Bazeley, Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies (Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, CA, 2013).
  95. R. K. Yin, Qualitative Research from Start to Finish (Guilford Press, New York, 2011).
  96. J. C. Hilpert and G. C. Marchand, Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method, Educ. Psychol. 53, 185 (2018).
  97. S. Brinkmann and S. Kvale, InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Reviewing, 3rd ed. (Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, CA, 2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010106– Published 15 February, 2024
  • Received 16 January 2023
  • Accepted 8 January 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation