Epistemological beliefs and their relationship to the knowledge of preservice secondary school teachers

OPEN FILE

Epistemological beliefs and their relationshipto the knowledge of preservice secondary school teachers

Genevieve Therriault • Leon Harvey

Published online: 3 December 2013� UNESCO IBE 2013

Abstract The authors analyse epistemological beliefs and their relationship to the

knowledge developed by students engaged in a reorganized programme of training for

secondary school teachers in Quebec. They examine two contexts for initial training: the

training in their discipline that university students follow, and the practical training stu-

dents undertake in the school environment. Qualitative data were obtained through critical

exploration (Piagetian) interviews with twelve pre-service teachers. These results made it

possible to outline multiple epistemological postures, and to describe the tensions between

the subject-related and practical aspects of initial training. In particular, based on an

analysis of their epistemological beliefs and their relationship to knowledge, it would

appear that pre-service teachers develop a less refined approach through practical training

than they attain at university. Finally, the authors raise some issues concerning teacher

training.

Keywords Personal epistemology � Epistemological beliefs � Competencies �Relationship to knowledge � Pre-service teachers � Teacher training � Secondary

education � Curriculum reform

This research was supported financially by the Fonds quebecois de recherche sur la societe et la culture(FQRSC) and the Fonds institutionnel de recherche de l’Universite du Quebec a Rimouski (FIR). It is part ofa doctoral thesis (Therriault 2008) in education, in the context of a joint programme undertaken by theUniversite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) and the Universite du Quebec a Rimouski (UQAR), under thesupervision of Leon Harvey and Philippe Jonnaert. We thank the twelve pre-service teachers who partici-pated in the research interviews.

G. Therriault (&) � L. HarveyUniversite du Quebec a Rimouski, 300, Allee des Ursulines C.P. 3300, Rimouski, QC G5L 3A1,Canadae-mail: [email protected]

L. Harveye-mail: [email protected]

123

Prospects (2013) 43:441–459DOI 10.1007/s11125-013-9288-4

In the context of current curriculum reforms, we explore the issue of epistemological beliefs

and their relationship to the knowledge that students develop when engaged in a programme

leading to the teaching of two disciplines in secondary education: sciences and technology

and the social universe. This approach seems relevant at a time when a logic of training by

competencies is being advocated, as well as a variety of epistemological postures in which

knowledge is the product of the individual and social development of the person concerned. In

this article, therefore, we analyse epistemological beliefs and their relationship to the

knowledge of pre-service secondary teachers in relation to two specific initial teacher training

contexts in Quebec. These are the scientific training or training in their subjects that students

follow at university, such as biology, chemistry, history, or geography, and the practical

training or teaching practice they undertake in secondary schools.

A key issue in our work is the implications of the most recent reform of teacher training

programmes and the resulting epistemological tensions among students. Here we consider

two specific angles of analysis: epistemological beliefs, and their relationship to knowledge.

We then describe the methodology we used and the qualitative data we obtained through

critical exploration (Piagetian) interviews conducted with twelve pre-service teachers.

Analysing this data allowed us to identify multiple epistemological postures and some areas

of incoherence between these teachers’ initial training in their subject and their practical

training. We conclude by outlining some of the consequences we see for teacher training.

The issues

This research has its origins in the current reform of university training programmes for

secondary school teachers in Quebec. More specifically, it relates to the epistemological

beliefs that pre-service secondary school teachers hold and the relationship of those beliefs

to the knowledge they develop during their initial training, at a time when these programs

are being changed substantively. In particular, new exit profiles have been developed,

including the new interdisciplinary profiles called Sciences and Technology and the Social

Universe. In Quebec, the latter term (univers social) is used in school programmes that

include human sciences subjects, such as history and geography. These profiles are based

on the newly constituted subject areas in secondary education (MELS 2007), and on

concerns about the earlier fragmentation between disciplines. A cultural approach to

teaching has also been adopted; it requires students to understand more about the history

and epistemology of the discipline in which they specialize. The ministerial document

(MEQ 2001) also clearly sets out a logic of competency-based training, which underlies the

most recent teacher training programmes. Finally, a variety of epistemological approaches

are being advocated, to better define the concept of competencies, including contemporary

views of situated action and cognition, distributed cognition and intelligence, collective

intelligence, and enaction (Jonnaert, Masciotra, Barrette, Morel, and Mane 2007). How-

ever, this presupposes a revision of the epistemological beliefs that pre-service teachers

hold, and how those relate to the intellectual knowledge they develop in the disciplines

taught at university (biology, history, etc.) and the codified knowledge in programmes of

studies and secondary school textbooks (Legendre 2004; MEQ 2001) that are provided in

the context of teaching practice.

Moreover, students are faced with the epistemological postures that prevail in each

dimension of the courses in the four aspects of initial training: teaching psychology,

pedagogy, subject-specific training, and practical training. In this respect, it would appear

that the roles attributed to pre-service teachers in the context of training courses in their

442 G. Therriault, L. Harvey

123

own subjects (where they are university students) and in practical training (where they are

trainees in the school environment) lead to their developing conflictual viewpoints, beliefs,

and practices (Flores 2001; Mellado 1997; Virta 2002). These disparities are amplified

when students are engaged in training that enables them to teach multiple subjects (Mu-

jawamariya 2000), as is true for the Sciences and Technology (S&T) and Social Universe

(SU) strands. Therefore, we believe it is valuable to investigate students’ epistemological

beliefs and their relationship to the knowledge they develop while enrolled in these two

strands during their training as secondary teachers, along with the tensions generated

between training in their subjects (biology, history, etc.) and their practical training

(teaching practice). In the final analysis, what are the epistemological postures that

structure such epistemological beliefs and their relationship to knowledge?

Current research suggests that it is possible to address this issue from various angles.

Within the literature we examined, we found several concepts: epistemological conceptions,

social representation, epistemological beliefs, relationship to knowledge, and epistemolog-

ical postures. First, let us emphasize that many researchers have addressed the ‘‘conceptions’’

and ‘‘social representation’’ of pre-service science teachers (Lemberger, Hewson, and Park

1999; Mellado 1997; Ruel 1997). Yet, little is known about conceptions in the human

sciences (Slekar 1998; Yeager and Davis 1995). This research shows that epistemological

conceptions of the empirical-realist and positivist types (in which knowledge is conceived of

as reflecting the essential characteristics of reality) are the dominant trend observed among

these subjects. However, constructivist considerations emerge during training.

Furthermore, the issue of ‘‘epistemological beliefs’’ or ‘‘personal epistemology’’ has

been addressed in many studies in cognitive psychology (Baxter Magolda 1987; Belenky,

Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule 1986; Bendixen and Feucht 2010; Elby and Hammer

2001; Hofer 2000; Khine 2008; Kuhn 1991; Palmer and Marra 2004; Perry 1970;

Schommer 1994) among American university students in many types of programmes over

the past 40 years. And a growing corpus of research addresses the epistemological beliefs

of pre-service teachers at the international level (Brownlee, Schraw, and Berthelsen 2011;

Brownlee, Walker, Lennox, Exley, and Pearce 2009; Chai, Teo, and Lee 2010; Chan and

Elliot 2004). These researchers have found many epistemological postures (or positions)

around which students structure their conceptions of knowledge. Some authors see these as

‘‘stages’’ of epistemological development, structured hierarchically and more or less

refined, that students go through during their university studies.

For example, for Perry (1970), a pioneer in this field, students’ first positions are

dualistic—statements are either true or false—and later positions involve a multiplicity of

viewpoints. Such a vision is then supplemented by relativism, in which individuals

themselves give meaning to their actions. The most evolved positions accord greater

importance to engagement by the individual. For other researchers, however, these pos-

tures are more like ‘‘dimensions’’ relating to the degree of certainty and simplicity of

knowledge, the sources of knowledge, and the way knowledge is justified. These dimen-

sions are more or less independent, and indeed incoherent, and they may differ depending

on the subjects in which students specialize and their training contexts.

Two particular studies on the relationship to the knowledge of pre-service secondary

teachers are worth noting here. First, Lebrun and Lenoir (2001) analysed 202 plans for

teaching-learning situations in human sciences produced by 112 pre-service primary

teachers; in them they identified a dominant epistemological posture based on realism.

Earlier, Charlot (1997) had analysed individuals’ ‘‘relationship to knowledge’’ based on a

sociological conception of the notion, understood in terms of the relationship with the

world, with the self, and towards others. In their analysis of these plans, however, Lebrun

Epistemological beliefs and their relationship 443

123

and Lenoir did not indicate whether this was a stable posture or dimensions that differed

depending on the training context. In another set of studies, Jellab (2006, 2008) endeav-

oured to determine the experience of 39 trainee teachers by analysing their ‘‘relationship to

school knowledge’’; Kaddouri and Vandroz (2008) found many tensions in the develop-

ment of their professional identity. In line with research in the field of personal episte-

mology, Jellab (2006, 2008) emphasizes the influence that the training context has on pre-

service teachers’ beliefs and on the relationship of those beliefs and their knowledge.

In light of these conceptions, our objective in this article is to analyse epistemological

beliefs and their relationship to the knowledge developed by pre-service secondary

teachers in the S&T and SU programmes. More specifically, our analysis focuses on their

epistemological beliefs and how those beliefs relate to the knowledge they develop as they

train in specific subjects (biology, history, etc.), on the one hand, and take practical training

courses (teaching practice in secondary schools), on the other, as we aim to draw dis-

tinctions between these two initial training contexts: training in specific subjects and

practical training. In our analysis of the data we collected and our subsequent discussion

we also outline the various epistemological postures these pre-service teachers developed.

Conceptual framework

From these research objectives we have drawn three specific concepts: the concept of

epistemological beliefs, the notion of relationship to knowledge, and the concept of

epistemological posture. The concept of epistemological belief (or personal epistemology)

refers to the thoughts and beliefs of students concerning the nature of knowledge and the

way they acquire it. It includes the affective and cognitive dimensions of the subject (Hofer

2004b). We have developed this notion with reference to many empirical studies in the

field of personal epistemology (Baxter Magolda 1987; Belenky et al. 1986; Hofer 2000;

Kuhn 1991; Palmer and Marra 2004; Perry 1970; Schommer 1994). Even though these

researchers adopt multiple approaches, they generally try to answer three questions (Hofer

2004b): What is knowledge? How is it acquired? And how is it constructed and evaluated?

In terms of their origins, these studies (Baxter Magolda 1987; Belenky et al. 1986;

Hofer 2000, 2004a; Kuhn 1991; Perry 1970; Schommer and Walker 1995), which are

primarily in English and conducted in North America, are inspired by Jean Piaget’s (1977)

work on intellectual development. One of these studies (Hofer 2000), based on a broad

analysis of the literature (Hofer and Pintrich 1997), proposes a four-dimensional structure

of personal epistemology in two major categories: the nature of knowledge—its certainty

and simplicity—and the process related to the act of knowing—the source and justification

of knowledge. (Also see Crahay and Fagnant (2007), for a review of English-language

research into personal epistemology).

The first category relates to the beliefs an individual holds about what knowledge is,

while the second concerns the way an individual comes to know something; these are

illustrated in Table 1. The related beliefs are represented on a continuum from less refined

(truth is absolute, certain, and transmitted by an authority) to more refined (truth is relative,

fluid, and actively constructed by the individual; Elby and Hammer 2001).

The notion of one’s relationship to knowledge, which is more broadly examined in

French language studies (Pouliot, Bader, and Therriault 2010), is a useful conceptual tool

for understanding the directional relationship that pre-service teachers establish with their

knowledge (Venturini 2007). Our view of this notion is inspired by both the sociological

and pedagogical perspectives. The pedagogical perspective relates to the relationship


123

between the pre-service teacher and knowledge in its proper sense, that is a discipline-

based content that is socially recognized and codified in official documents (Maury and

Caillot 2003). This notion is also inspired by the theory of the relationship to knowledge,

from the sociological viewpoint, as developed by Charlot (1997), and the three related

dimensions: epistemic, identity, and social.

In operational terms, the epistemic dimension (relationship with the world) raises issues

about the status conferred upon codified knowledge in the plans for university courses

(training by discipline), as well as in the programmes of studies and textbooks for sec-

ondary education (practical training). The identity dimension (relationship with the self)

concerns the status and role of the learner during courses in various disciplines (as a

student) and in teaching practice (as a trainee). Finally, the social dimension (relationship

with others) refers to the status and role exercised by the mediator (the university professor,

specialist in a discipline, university students, secondary teachers, associate teachers, stu-

dents, etc.) in a pedagogical relationship. Certain elements of this definition tend to be

Table 1 Dimensionality of personal epistemology

Dimensions Sub-dimensions

1. The nature of knowledge (anindividual’s beliefs concerningwhat knowledge is)

1.1 Certainty of knowledgeIs knowledge fixed or fluid (the developmentalistperspective)?Does absolute truth exist (the lower level)?Is knowledge tentative or evolutionary (the higher level)?Can theories be modified by genuine interchange (the highestlevel: evaluative epistemology)?

1.2 Simplicity of knowledgeIs knowledge an accumulation of facts or is it made up ofhighly interrelated concepts (the developmentalistperspective)? Is knowledge discrete, concrete, or based onknowable facts (the lower level)?Is knowledge relative, contingent, and contextual(the higher level)?

2. The nature or process related tothe act of knowing (how anindividual comes to know something)

2.1 Source of knowledgeDoes knowledge originate outside the self and reside inexternal authority, from whom it may be transmitted(the lower level)?Does knowledge have its origins in the self? Does theindividual have the ability to construct knowledge ininteraction with others (the developmental turning point)?Is the knower a simple spectator (the lower level) or anactive constructor of meaning (the higher level)?What is the role of the learner, peers, the instructor?What are the individual’s beliefs about authority?

2.2 Justification of knowledgeHow do individuals evaluate knowledge, including the useof evidence, the use they make of authority and expertise,and their evaluation of experts?How is knowledge justified? Through observation, orauthority? Or on the basis of what feels right, whenknowledge is uncertain (the lower level)?Do individuals use rules of inquiry and begin to personallyevaluate knowledge? Do they integrate the views of experts(the higher level)?

Source: Based on Hofer (2000), 378–405


123

close to the dimension of the source of knowledge in personal epistemology and are

enriched by considerations related to the self and to others. This is why we consider it

relevant in the present study to analyse both epistemological beliefs and their relationship

to knowledge.

The concept of epistemological posture refers to the general framework or paradigm to

which pre-service teachers refer when they are developing or constructing knowledge

(Jonnaert and Vander Borght 2009); they may refer to epistemological postures of an

empiricist, positivist, realistic, or socio-constructivist nature, and to other contemporary

postures. The very notion of ‘‘posture’’, which refers to a particular attitude of the body,

illustrates the dynamic, changing, and even evolutionary nature of this concept; in this

sense, it is related to the idea of students developing a personal epistemology (or episte-

mological beliefs), as they train to be teachers.

We and our colleagues have investigated the various dimensions of epistemological

beliefs and their relationship to knowledge, both quantitatively, through a closed-ended

questionnaire (Therriault, Harvey, and Jonnaert 2010), and qualitatively, through critical

exploration (Piagetian) interviews (Therriault and Harvey 2011). In this article, we

describe only the qualitative data compiled through interviews, as they shed light on

certain distinctions between training by discipline and practical training. In the next section

we describe methodological considerations relating to the conduct of these interviews.

Methodology

Given that one of our objectives is to establish distinctions between the two contexts of

training for secondary education (by discipline and practical training), we chose to use

inductive procedures so we could develop hypotheses relating to pre-service secondary

teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their relationship to knowledge, based on our

interviews. Therefore, this exploratory study includes characteristics related to the inter-

pretative approach, which primarily aims to interpret a phenomenon based on the meaning

that the participants themselves—the pre-service teachers—give to their training experi-

ence (Denzin and Lincoln 2000).

In this study we also compiled empirical data from pre-service secondary teachers at

several levels (Van der Maren 2003), so we could identify the viewpoints of students at

different stages in their training. Over a given period, therefore, we conducted our research

among four cohorts of students from the first to the fourth years of the two target groups

(S&T and SU) within the baccalaureat programme in secondary teaching at the Universite

du Quebec a Rimouski (UQAR).

Population and sample

Ready access to this field of investigation was a determining element in our choice of the

population to study. Moreover, their most recent baccalaureat programme takes into

account the orientations that MEQ (2001) outlined concerning teacher training. This made

it a convenient sample. In the autumn of 2006, a total of 65 students were admitted to the

programme in the two targeted fields. In the winter of 2007, part of this population

(N = 47) agreed to take part in the research on a voluntary basis.

First, we asked all of the respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the 27

items included in the personal epistemology questionnaire focusing on disciplines. This

questionnaire, initially developed and validated by Hofer (2000), with the title Discipline-


123

Focused Epistemological Belief Items (DFEBI), was translated by the first author of this

article (Therriault 2008). We also pre-tested the English-to-French translation with a small

sub-sample of eight pre-service primary teachers in their third year of training; they val-

idated the wording and made various comments on the items. Two experts also made slight

changes to the questionnaire. Based on the 22 selected items, we developed a global index

of epistemological refinement, together with four sub-indices for the four dimensions of

personal epistemology (certainty, simplicity, source, and justification). Second, we invited

12 of the students to participate in critical exploration (Piagetian) interviews. Seven of

these students were in the S&T concentration and five in the SU concentration. Four

students were in their first year, four in their second year, and four in their third year. We

did not include any fourth-year students, as the discriminant analysis, described below, did

not identify any who stood out in their level of epistemological refinement.

To select the students for the interviews from among the 47 respondents, we used a

specific mathematical function, discriminant analysis. This succeeded in identifying stu-

dents who stood out from their group, in other words from their strand (either S&T or SU),

and others whose epistemological beliefs made them more representative of their group.

The results of the discriminant analysis are presented in Table 2.

Based on the discriminant analysis, certain respondents emerged as typical or atypical in

relation to their field. Accordingly, in each field, we selected three typical respondents and

three atypical respondents (the numbers indicated in parentheses in Table 2): a total of 12

interviewees.

The critical exploration (Piagetian) interview

This interview, inspired by Piaget’s method, is a non-structured interview technique

focusing on the subject and her/his responses. It is intended to identify the respondent’s

cognitive structures and intellectual functioning. This interview technique is also known as

critical exploration because it challenges the arguments the respondent advances (Per-

raudeau 1998, 2002). The technique is used in particular for studies in the fields of

psychology and epistemology.

During a non-directive exchange, each interviewee was led to justify, explain, and

discuss the replies they had provided in the questionnaire on personal epistemology, and

sometimes to reconsider their viewpoints. The interviewer then made suggestions and

counter-suggestions to verify how solid and stable the student’s epistemological posi-

tioning actually was. An example would be, ‘‘Another student that I met yesterday told me

the opposite of what you’re saying. What do you think about that? What would you say to

that student?’’ These techniques have the effect of destabilizing the reasoning given by the

interviewee, leading her/him to develop a new argument. The critical exploration interview

therefore involves the oral expression of a mental action, in this case the epistemological

beliefs identified in the questionnaire.

Table 2 Discriminant analysis

Profiles A posteriori classification Total

A priori classification Sciences and technology Social universe

Sciences and technology 12 (3) 6 (3) 18

Social universe 4 (3) 25 (3) 29

Total 16 31 47


123

When the items in the questionnaire are appropriate, the interviewer encourages the

interviewee to draw parallels between certain questionnaire items and their teaching

practice in a secondary school. For example, item 4 of the personal epistemology ques-

tionnaire (‘‘What we consider to be recognized knowledge in science and technology or

human sciences is based on an objective reality’’), is worded as follows when applied to

practical training or secondary teaching: ‘‘What we consider to be recognized knowledge

in programmes of studies and in school textbooks for sciences and technology or human

sciences in secondary school is based on an objective reality’’. This is a specific feature of

the interview, as the questionnaire does not explicitly deal with practical training; it is

focused instead on the beliefs students hold in relation to the disciplines taught at uni-

versity: training by discipline. Therefore, the data we gathered in the interviews provided a

basis for analysing the students’ epistemological beliefs and their relationship to their

knowledge in relation to the two contexts: training by discipline and practical training.

Qualitative analysis methods

We then conducted a thematic analysis of the data we obtained through the critical explo-

ration interviews (Paille 1996; Paille and Muchielli 2008). We also drew inspiration from

content analysis procedures (Bardin 2003). Thus, our research made use of what Paille

(1996) calls ‘‘qualitative’’ and ‘‘quasi-qualitative’’ methods of analysis. In practice, thematic

analysis is intended to reformulate, interpret, and theorize phenomena, while content ana-

lysis involves, among other aspects, frequency counting, which is useful in identifying

important, significant, or recurrent elements (Huberman and Miles 2003) in the beliefs and

their relationship to the knowledge of students. These two procedures allowed us to conduct

our analysis in greater depth and contributed to our objectives of exploration and induction.

More precisely, the thematic analysis allowed us to identify the themes present in the corpus

of responses, which consisted of the transcriptions of the 12 interviews. Our analytical tech-

nique involved two operations, based on two specific logics: a thematic analysis of the corpus

(a classification logic) and a discursive examination of the emerging themes (an interpretative

logic). For the thematic analysis, we used the computerized qualitative analysis programme

QSR NVivo. We also conducted a sequential thematic analysis, which began with a pre-

analysis of four interviews. The result of all these analyses was an analytic table, containing a

coherent set of themes, categories, and sub-categories, along with their definitions, which we

then used to analyse the whole corpus of 12 interviews. The table is ‘‘mixed’’ because it groups

together pre-determined and emerging categories. It also gives results by frequency. Please

note that in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the pre-determined categories and sub-categories are

marked with the symbol (*). The others emerged during our analysis of the qualitative data.

Results

The following section focuses mainly on the beliefs of the 12 pre-service teachers and their

relationship to knowledge in both types of training. The questionnaire did allow us to see

significant differences in the epistemological beliefs of the 47 teachers, but the distinctions

we observed between the S&T and SU groups and the evolution of their training across

several years did not emerge clearly enough to be addressed here. Our aim was more to

identify certain synthesized elements relating to the two categories of personal episte-

mology—the nature of knowledge and the process related to the act of knowing—as they

relate to initial training by discipline and practical training.


123

The nature of knowledge

Hofer (2000) sees knowledge as having two dimensions: certainty and simplicity. Table 3

shows the categories and sub-categories linked to this theme, as well as the frequency of

the responses. We also express the frequency in percentage terms, disaggregated by the

two types of training, in order to more clearly distinguish between the types.

A reading of the results by frequency (in Table 3) shows a different distribution of

beliefs between the two types of training. Here, a trend emerged in relation to the nature of

knowledge: university students generally see knowledge by subject matter as fluid, com-

plex, and subjective. It is also dependent upon contingencies and context. Finally, it is

sometimes seen as an accumulation of knowable facts. However, knowledge set out in

programmes of studies and secondary school textbooks is less likely to change, as it is most

frequently seen as being simple and objective. The following extracts illustrate the dif-

ference between training by subject and scientific training, on the one hand …

You can already see very clearly that Einstein’s theories are being questioned.

Everything that you think is absolute never is in the end. … Even the work of the

greatest minds has always been revised. There are changes and adaptations. Systems

change. Although there is truth, it is never completely true. (S&T student, year 3)

And, on the other hand, practical training…

There are groups with greater facility, and there you can have a go [at questioning

scientific theories]. But with groups that are already in difficulty, you can’t add too

much. You provide the basics that they have to master. Then, if you can open things

up, you do so. But if you see that it’s already too much for them, you focus on what is

important for their exam, so that they understand and know the basics. The basics are

important. Then, for those who are more capable, you can go further. But that

depends on the students’ level of learning. (S&T student, year 2)

Table 3 The nature of knowledge: certainty and simplicity

Categories and sub-categories Training by discipline Practical training

Frequency % Frequency %

Certainty of knowledge*

Beliefs concerning the concept of truth 90 38.6 23 28.8

Knowledge—fluid* 69 29.7 12 15

Knowledge—subjective 28 12 18 22.5

Knowledge—objective 24 10.3 21 26.2

Knowledge—fixed* 21 9 6 7.5

Knowledge—viable 1 0.4 0 0

Total 233 100 80 100

Simplicity of knowledge*

Knowledge—simple* 2 8.7 23 57.5

Knowledge—dependent on contingencies and context* 7 30.4 8 20

Knowledge—accumulation of knowable facts* 5 21.8 5 12.5

Knowledge—complex* 5 21.8 1 2.5

Knowledge—can be applied to other contexts 3 13 0 0

Knowledge—interrelated concepts* 1 4.3 3 7.5

Total 23 100 40 100


123

The process related to the act of knowing

According to Hofer (2000), two dimensions are associated with the process related to the

act of knowing: the source and the justification of knowledge.

The source of knowledge: Relationship to knowledge

Looking first at the source of knowledge, we found three dimensions linked to an exam-

ination of the relationship to knowledge. These are the epistemic dimension (relationship

with the world), identity (relationship with the self), and the social dimension (relationship

with others), as defined by Charlot (1997). In this respect, it appeared to us that the three

dimensions considered when examining the relationship to knowledge can advantageously

be linked to the source of knowledge, which is a dimension of personal epistemology. This

permits a richer examination of epistemological beliefs, as one can also consider the

dimension of identity (relationship with the self) and the social dimension (relationship

with others).

The epistemological dimension: Relationship with the world. Looking at the first

dimension, we found that the data revealed the types of relationships that students have

with knowledge and knowing. The interviews also revealed their different ways of con-

sidering the textbooks used at university and those used in secondary school in the fields of

S&T and SU. Table 4 presents all of the sub-categories related to this component of the

source of knowledge, and the importance the respondents attributed to each of them.

Once again, we found a different distribution for the relationship to knowledge and the

act of knowing between the two types of training. The respondents indicated on several

occasions that individuals construct knowledge in both training contexts. The point of view

of a pre-service teacher illustrates the importance that they accord to the process of

encouraging secondary school students to construct their own knowledge and competen-

cies, as suggested by the curriculum reform:

If, for example, I was working with secondary school students … They are now

engaged in projects under the reform, and there are no traditional courses in class.

Therefore I do not provide choices up front, but I set them on projects and they

develop their own competencies, which they learn to seek out. We therefore give

them the basics, and indications, so that they know how to proceed, and we provide

them with guidance and respond to their questions. (SU student, year 3)

We were somewhat surprised that few respondents indicated that secondary school

students construct their knowledge through interaction with others, namely their peers and

the teacher. Moreover, they firmly expressed the belief that knowledge has to be

understood or acquired gradually. They placed more importance on it during their courses

on specific subjects: ‘‘I generally know the replies to questions in the field of sciences

because I have been taught them. They have been demonstrated and I have remembered

them, so I acquired them in a resolutely traditional fashion at school’’ (S&T student, year

3). Respondents also considered that knowledge lies with an external authority who

transmits it, particularly in secondary school. In this respect, one second-year SU student

described the experience of the first two teaching practice placements as follows: ‘‘I

essentially transmitted the subject prepared by the [associate] teacher. In practice, I

transmitted paragraphs of the textbook’’.

Turning to the relationships that pre-service teachers have with school textbooks, we

discovered that the great majority of responses relate to textbooks, and the viewpoints they


123

expressed are diverse (see Table 4). These trainee teachers prefer to see the knowledge

contained in textbooks as absolute truth to prevent confusion arising among the students.

They also think this knowledge is trustworthy because it has been verified by experts.

Others tend to believe that the knowledge contained in textbooks is based on an inter-

pretation by the author. A smaller number said they use textbooks as reference works, but

do not structure their teaching around them.

You don’t only depend on the textbook to teach. You’ve got a background and an

overview of science. So, if something is a bit approximate in the textbook, you adjust

and modify it. … I’ve already done substitute teaching and worked in the profession.

And I almost never use textbooks. I look to see what they have to study … And I use

them a little to set the direction, but I am able to add material. I don’t simply stay

with what is written in the textbook. I’m capable of extrapolating on it and devel-

oping it. (S&T student, year 2)

Nevertheless, for most respondents, the textbook appears to be the ‘‘protocol’’ to be

followed during teaching practice in secondary teaching.

Identity dimension: Relationship with the self—student or trainee teacher. Pre-service

teachers, whether they are students at university or engaged in teaching practice in school,

have various types of relationships with the self, which relate to their identity in these two

types of situations. Table 5 sets out a brief list of the roles and types of status that they take

on during their initial training.

Table 4 Source of knowledge: epistemological dimension—relationship with the world

Categories and sub-categories Training bydiscipline

Practical training


Relationship to knowledge and knowing

Experience—constructed by the individual* 11 33.4 8 32

Knowledge—must be understood or acquired gradually by theindividual

13 39.5 5 20

Knowledge—resides in an external authority who transmits it* 3 9 7 28

Knowledge—to be discovered by the individual 3 9 0 0

Knowledge—cannot be completely understood by theindividual

1 3 2 8

Experience—constructed through interaction with others* 0 0 3 12

Knowledge—exists independently of the individual 2 6 0 0

Total 33 100 25 100

Attitudes to textbooks by subject and school textbooks*

Absolute truth 1 33.3 7 21.9

Reliable 2 66.6 6 18.8

Work of reference 0 0 6 18.8

An interpretation by the author 0 0 5 15.6

Others 0 0 8 24.9

Total 3 100 32 100


123

As Table 5 shows, these students rely most frequently on textbooks and experts. These

are, on the one hand, specialists in the disciplines and the textbooks used at university and,

on the other, the associate teacher and school textbooks. Several respondents referred to

this in both training contexts.

But in the sciences, it is difficult [to question the conclusions of a researcher]. I

mean, personally I’m not a well-known researcher. I can’t begin to raise too many

questions … I’ve already done experiments, but casting doubt on certain theories?

I’d have to be pretty pretentious to do that! (S&T student, year 1)

In front of the class [in secondary school], to explain something, as a teacher you

often base yourself on the documentation available. In my view, you’ve got to give

them something solid. Therefore, probably, unless I realize myself that there is an

error or something wrong … And I expect that the textbooks that have come down to

us have probably been extensively verified so that we’re not given just anything. But

it’s true that, as a teacher, I would tend to take the textbook, if we needed to follow a

book, and then explain what’s in it. (S&T student, year 3)

During teaching practice, pre-service teachers are called upon to play a broader variety of

roles. They sometimes allow themselves to be critical and to interpret the content of

programmes and textbooks. On other occasions, they are neutral and can act as experts, a

role they do not often allow themselves to play at university.

Social dimension: Relationship with others. Two categories relate to the relationships

between students and the various actors involved in teacher training: university teachers

and secondary school teachers, other university students, and secondary school students.

They give rise to several sub-categories, which are summarized in Table 6.

As Table 6 shows, the students we interviewed allocated different roles and status to the

professors specializing in specific disciplines at university and to secondary school

teachers. Interesting contrasts emerged between the components of the two types of

training. In particular, the students generally said that university professors give different

replies to the same question. They recognize that researchers may disagree. In this regard, a

student recounted an experience during the first year of training at the university in a

specific subject.

For example, during the first session, two professors were asked to show us a plan for

a laboratory report, and two contradictory replies were given! … We were only at

our first session and two teachers did not even have the same view on a laboratory

Table 5 Relationship with self-identity

Sub-categories Training by discipline Practical training


Rely on the textbook and the expert 23 56.1 19 31.7

Critical 9 22 13 21.7

Neutral 2 4.9 10 16.7

Interpret 0 0 7 11.7

Expert 0 0 4 6.7

Others 7 17 7 11.5

Total 41 100 60 100


123

report! That’s why there isn’t unanimous agreement between university professors.

(S&T student, year 1)

In contrast, secondary school teachers most frequently tend to provide identical answers to

the same question. These students also conferred several other roles upon professors

specializing in specific disciplines, such as that of expert. They often have to provide

explanations on the world and adopt a neutral attitude, although certain students consider

them to be biased.

Trainee teachers engaged in teaching practice have three main types of relationships

with secondary school students (see Table 6). The great majority said that secondary

school students must make use of their critical judgement. Therefore, the students are

authorized to challenge the information provided by the teacher and in school textbooks as

a basis for interpretation.

Secondary school students would say: ‘‘Well look, it seems to me that the textbook

could also have said that. That’s what you told us and I think it’s like the inter-

pretation you said you found in a book, but it seems to me that they could have added

… The textbook is perhaps a little biased’’. It’s also perhaps dangerous to give

students the tools to challenge the information provided to them. But, at the same

time, that’s school for you: it’s the critical spirit. (SU student, year 2)

A smaller proportion of the respondents said that students should sometimes refer to others,

namely to the secondary school teacher or the school textbook.

The justification of knowledge

These students mentioned several means of justifying or evaluating knowledge in relation

to the two types of training. These means consist of analytical sub-categories, as shown in

Table 7.

Table 6 Source of knowledge: the social dimension—relationship with others

Categories and sub-categories Training by discipline Practical training


Relationship with university professors and secondary teachers*

Give different replies to the same question 15 30.7 7 25

Give identical replies to the same question 2 4 7 25

Expert 11 22.5 2 7.1

Neutral 4 8.2 1 3.6

Biased 4 8.2 0 0

Provide explanations on the world 4 8.2 0 0

Others 9 18.2 11 39.3

Total 49 100 28 100

Relationship with other university students and secondary school students*

Critical 2 22.2 23 53.5

Interpretive 0 0 10 23.3

Refer to others 0 0 7 16.3

Seeking absolute truth 3 33.3 1 2.3

Others 4 44.4 2 4.6

Total 9 100 43 100


123

Here it is important to note the broad variety of means they mentioned to justify

knowledge, as it illustrates a certain concern among them in this respect. Several of their

replies related to training by discipline. Recourse to empirical proof, however, is a sig-

nificant means of access to knowledge; they mentioned it more often than any other means,

particularly in specific disciplines. From this viewpoint, what is ‘‘true’’ is based on proof,

that is empirical evidence:

In geography, if we say things like: ‘lava burns … a chemical reaction will have a

certain reaction …’ you can’t be stubborn about it. It’s been proved. They’ve done it

in laboratories. They’ve tried it out. (SU student, year 1)

In addition to empirical evidence, they mentioned several other means of justification, for

both types of training. They referred to intrapersonal means, such as the personal

evaluation of knowledge and personal experience, as well as to external means, including

authorities and expertise. Other means may be classified as social and democratic, such as

questioning and recourse to consensus. Finally, certain subjects are open to discussion and

logic.

Discussion

Looking at the beliefs that pre-service secondary teachers hold about the nature of

knowledge (certainty and simplicity), we found that they seem to voluntarily lower their

level of epistemological refinement when they are in the presence of secondary school

students (during teaching practice); meanwhile their beliefs concerning the knowledge by

discipline taught at university seem to be more refined. This is currently the subject of

discussion: authors such as Elby and Hammer (2001) suggest that it may be productive to

adopt a naive realism in relation to secondary school students, while others consider that

teachers at that stage already need to adopt a refined epistemological posture and, for

example, encourage their students to engage in situation discussions or projects requiring

an interdisciplinary approach (Buty and Plantin 2008; Fourez, Maingain, and Dufour 2002)

for ‘‘socially interesting’’ and controversial issues relating to sciences and human sciences

(Albe 2009; Bader and Therriault 2008; Therriault and Bader 2009).

Table 7 The process related to the act of knowing: justification of knowledge

Sub-categories Training bydiscipline

Practical training


Through empirical proof 82 40 25 23.4

Through personal evaluation and comparison of experts andsources*

29 14.1 19 20.2

Through personal experience* 21 10.2 14 15

Through authority and expertise* 22 10.7 9 9.6

Through questioning 19 9.3 12 12.8

Through consensus 14 6.8 9 9.6

Through discussion and logic 10 5 7 7.4

Others 8 3.9 2 2

Total 205 100 94 100


123

In this regard, some researchers (Larochelle and Desautels 2006; Legardez and Simo-

nneaux 2006, 2011) suggest teaching topical issues at secondary school in relation to

current events, using non-stabilized knowledge rather than fixed and objective knowledge,

and encouraging students to develop critical and reflexive thought, but without leaning

towards any form of relativism (Perry 1970). From the viewpoint of citizenship education,

therefore, the beliefs of pre-service teachers concerning practical training (teaching prac-

tice) would merit further refinement based on these propositions.

Looking at the process related to the act of knowing and the source of knowledge, we

found that the beliefs these students reported varied in their level of refinement (Hofer

2000; Hofer and Pintrich 1997). Moreover, they refer to multiple epistemological postures,

with different types of relationship to knowledge and knowing, attempting to reconcile a

priori opposing epistemological postures. For example, the students we interviewed can

conceive of the existence of an ontological reality, while at the same time recognizing that

the subject contributes to the development of knowledge. Looking at their relationship with

the self, we found that their replies show stages (or positions) of epistemological devel-

opment that are not very advanced, since they refer most frequently to the textbook and to

experts. However, we did note that some more refined beliefs emerged during teaching

practice, when pre-service teachers are authorized to criticize and even interpret the

knowledge contained in programmes of studies and secondary school textbooks.

These respondents also recognized that disagreements can arise between researchers.

This is a fairly refined belief, which Perry (1970) associates with multiplicity: accepting

that several viewpoints can coexist. Other student beliefs reflect fairly unrefined episte-

mological postures, such as the absolutist posture that knowledge is held by the expert

(Baxter Magolda 1987; Kuhn 1991). Finally, their beliefs concerning students in secondary

school seem to be more developed than those relating to secondary school teachers, as they

place greater importance on students showing responsibility and commitment (Perry 1970).

Looking at the justification of knowledge, we found that the students referred to a very

broad variety of means, related to a broad variety of epistemological postures. A question

that arises here is how much students ‘‘adopt’’ a specific epistemological posture, in view

of the eclectic views captured in the analysis. Therefore, we see grounds for believing that

students adopt a multiplicity of postures, sometimes conflicting, based on the situation,

whether during courses in their university discipline or teaching practice and, it may be

presumed, in other contexts not examined here (at home, with friends, at work, during

educational psychology or pedagogy courses, etc.).

We also found epistemological tensions between the two types of training, as illustrated

by certain contradictions and inconsistencies (Kaddouri and Vandroz 2008). In particular,

they conferred a different status upon knowledge in these two contexts, for example, fluid

and subjective knowledge in training by discipline and fairly simple and objective

knowledge during teaching practice. But do such tensions constitute a real problem for

these pre-service teachers? During the interviews, they appeared to be fully aware of these

contradictions and did not demonstrate any lack of comfort in this respect. It may be also

surmised that, in order to avoid this conflictual situation, these new teachers prefer to

conform to the prevailing epistemological postures in the different contexts. Nevertheless,

the question arises of whether there may be room for greater harmony between beliefs

relating to training by discipline and those respecting practical training. With a view to

facilitating greater consistency between these two aspects, we can envision some prom-

ising pedagogical approaches, based on the main orientations we have outlined above.


123

Conclusions

In this article we intended to contribute to the development of new and refined knowledge

concerning the epistemological beliefs of pre-service secondary school teachers, and their

relationship to those teachers’ knowledge, based on critical exploration (Piagetian) inter-

views. We have focused on two aspects of initial training: training by discipline and

practical training. We also observed multiple epistemological postures, which differ

according to the dimensions we analysed. And we noted contradictions between the two

types of training, an observation that bears witness to certain tensions.

Finally, this research has implications for the training of teachers and of teacher trainers,

who are invited to refine certain epistemological beliefs among pre-service teachers,

particularly in relation to practical teacher training. For this to occur, it would be desirable

to address issues of an epistemological nature more fully during courses in educational

psychology and pedagogy, and during training by discipline and practical training; training

should also encourage students to adopt a more critical view of experts and textbooks. The

testing of innovative pedagogical applications (interdisciplinary projects, situation dis-

cussions, etc.) covering topical social issues may offer a promising way to facilitate the

evolution of these teachers’ epistemological beliefs with a view to their lifelong profes-

sional development and education in citizenship. It would also be valuable to examine their

personal epistemology as these practices are implemented. Therefore, the work already

begun on this subject should be continued, as it may shed light on one of the difficulties

currently encountered in the implementation of curriculum reform: the requirement to

reconsider the epistemological beliefs and their relationship to the knowledge of students

engaged in initial training, and their underlying epistemological postures.

References

Albe, V. (2009). Enseigner des controverses [Teaching controversial issues]. Rennes: Presses Universitairesde Rennes.

Bader, B., & Therriault, G. (2008). A propos des dimensions sociales des sciences et de leur pertinence pourrenouveler l’enseignement des sciences: une illustration a l’ecole primaire [On the social dimensions ofthe sciences and their relevance for the renewal of science teaching: An illustration in primary school].Revue des sciences de l’education, 34(1), 163–184.

Bardin, L. (2003). L’analyse de contenu [Content analysis]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1987). The affective dimension of learning: Faculty-student relationships that

enhance intellectual development. College Student Journal, 21, 46–58.Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The

development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Bendixen, L. D., & Feucht, F. C. (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and

implications for practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Brownlee, J., Schraw, G., & Berthelsen, D. (2011). Personal epistemology and teacher education. New

York/London: Routledge.Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B., & Pearce, S. (2009). The first year university experience:

Using personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching in higher education. HigherEducation, 58(5), 599–618. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9212-2.

Buty, C., & Plantin, C. (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences. Du debat a l’apprentissage [Discussion inscience classes: From debate to learning]. Lyon: Institut national de recherche pedagogique (INRP).

Chai, C. S., Teo, T., & Lee, C. B. (2010). Modeling the relationships among beliefs about learning,knowledge, and teaching of pre-service teachers in Singapore. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,19(1), 25–42.

Chan, K.-W., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions aboutteaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817–831.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9212-2

Charlot, B. (1997). Du rapport au savoir. Elements pour une theorie [On the relationship to knowledge:Elements for a theory]. Paris: Anthropos.

Crahay, M., & Fagnant, A. (2007). A propos de l’epistemologie personnelle: un etat des recherches anglo-saxonnes [On personal epistemology: A review of English-language research]. Revue francaise depedagogie, 161, 79–117.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 1–34). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85,554–567.

Flores, M. A. (2001). Person and context in becoming a new teacher. Journal of Education for Teaching,27(2), 135–148.

Fourez, G., Maingain, A., & Dufour, B. (2002). Approches didactiques de l’interdisciplinarite [Pedagogicalapproaches to interdisciplinary learning]. Brussels: De Boeck.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 25, 378–405.

Hofer, B. K. (2004a). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts:Student interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1),129–163.

Hofer, B. K. (2004b). Introduction: Paradigmatic approaches to personal epistemology. Educational Psy-chologist, 39(1), 1–3.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs aboutknowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 1–34.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, B. M. (2003). Analyse des donnees qualitatives [Analysis of qualitative data].Brussels: De Boeck.

Jellab, A. (2006). Debuter dans l’enseignement secondaire. Quel rapport aux savoirs chez les professeursstagiaires? [Starting out in secondary teaching: The relationship with knowledge among traineeteachers]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Jellab, A. (2008). Le rapport aux savoirs chez les professeurs stagiaires du secondaire: une nouvelleproblematique en education. [The relationship with knowledge among trainee secondary teachers: Anew issue in education]. L’Homme et la societe, 167–168–169, 295–319.

Jonnaert, P., Masciotra, D., Barrette, J., Morel, D., & Mane, Y. (2007). From competence in the curriculumto competence in action. Prospects, 37(2), 187–203.

Jonnaert, P., & Vander Borght, C. (2009). Creer des conditions d’apprentissage. Un cadre de referencesocioconstructiviste pour une formation didactique des enseignants [Creating the conditions forlearning: A socio-constructivist reference framework for teacher training] (3rd ed.). Brussels: DeBoeck Universite.

Kaddouri, M., & Vandroz, D. (2008). Formation professionnelle en alternance: quelques tensions d’ordrepedagogique et identitaire [Vocational training sandwich courses: Some tensions related to pedagogyand identity]. In E. Correa Molina, C. Gervais, & S. Rittershaussen (Eds.), Vers une conceptualisationde la situation de stage: Explorations internationales (pp. 23–42). Sherbrooke, Quebec: Editions duCRP.

Khine, M. S. (2008). Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Larochelle, M., & Desautels, J. (2006). L’education aux sciences et le croisement des expertises [Science

education and cross-cutting expertise]. In A. Legardez & L. Simonneaux (Eds.), L’ecole a l’epreuve del’actualite. Enseigner les questions vives (pp. 61–77). Paris: ESF.

Lebrun, J., & Lenoir, Y. (2001). Planification en sciences humaines chez de futures enseignantes et lesmodeles d’intervention educative sous-jacents [Planning in human sciences among pre-service teachersand the underlying models of educational intervention]. Revue des sciences de l’education, 27(3),569–594.

Legardez, A., & Simonneaux, L. (Eds.) (2006). L’ecole a l’epreuve de l’actualite. Enseigner les questionssocialement vives [The school confronted with topical issues: Teaching hot social questions]. Paris:ESF.

Legardez, A., & Simonneaux, L. (Eds.) (2011). Questions socialement vives dans l’enseignement et laformation [Topical social issues in teaching and training]. Dijon: Educagri editions.

Legendre, M.-F. (2004). Approches constructivistes et nouvelles orientations curriculaires: d’un curriculumfonde sur l’approche par objectifs a un curriculum axe sur le developpement de competences [Con-structivist approaches and new curricular orientations: From a curriculum following an outcomes-


123

based pedagogy to a curriculum focussing on developing competencies]. In P. Jonnaert & D. Masciotra(Eds.), Constructivisme: Choix contemporains. Hommage a Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp. 51–92). Sainte-Foy, Quebec: Presses de l’Universite du Quebec.

Lemberger, J., Hewson, P. W., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between prospective secondary teachers’classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83(3),347–371.

Maury, S., & Caillot, M. (2003). Rapport au savoir et didactiques [Relationship to knowledge and peda-gogical approaches]. Paris: Fabert.

Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science.Science & Education, 6, 331–354.

MELS [Ministere de l’Education, du Loisir et du Sport, Gouvernement du Quebec] (2007). Programme deformation de l’ecole quebecoise. Version approuvee. Enseignement secondaire, deuxieme cycle[Training programme for schools in Quebec: Approved version: Secondary teaching, second cycle].Quebec: MELS.

MEQ [Ministere de l’Education du Quebec] (2001). La formation a l’enseignement. Les orientations. Lescompetences professionnelles [Teacher training: Orientations: Professional competencies]. Quebec:MEQ.

Mujawamariya, D. (2000). De la nature du savoir scientifique a l’enseignement des sciences: l’urgenced’une approche constructiviste dans la formation des enseignants de sciences [From the nature ofscientific knowledge to science teaching: The urgency of a constructivist approach in training scienceteachers]. Education et francophonie, 28(2), 1–11. http://www.acelf.ca/revue.

Paille, P. (1996). De l’analyse qualitative en general et de l’analyse thematique en particulier [Fromquantitative analysis in general to thematic analysis in particular]. Revue de l’association pour larecherche qualitative, 15, 179–194.

Paille, P., & Muchielli, A. (2008). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales [Quantitativeanalysis in human and social sciences]. Paris: Armand Collin.

Palmer, B., & Marra, R. M. (2004). College students’ epistemological perspectives across knowledgedomains: A proposed grounded theory. Higher Education, 47, 311–335.

Perraudeau, M. (1998). Echanger pour apprendre. L’entretien critique [Learning through exchanges:Critical interviewing]. Paris: Armand Colin.

Perraudeau, M. (2002). L’entretien cognitif a visee d’apprentissage [Cognitive interviews with a view tolearning]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Piaget, J. (1977). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant [The origins of intelligence in children].Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle.

Pouliot, C., Bader, B., & Therriault, G. (2010). The notion of the relationship to knowledge: A theoreticaltool for research in science education. Journal in Environmental and Science Education, 5(3),239–264.

Ruel, F. (1997). Quelques illustrations discursives d’une representation sociale a l’egard de l’apprentissageet de l’enseignement—le cas d’un futur enseignant de sciences [Some discursive illustrations of socialrepresentation in relation to learning and teaching: The case of a pre-service science teacher]. Edu-cation et francophonie, 25(1), 1–11. http://www.acelf.ca/revue.

Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning.In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25–40).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal ofEducational Psychology, 87(3), 424–431.

Slekar, T. D. (1998). Epistemological entanglements: Preservice elementary school teachers ‘‘apprenticeshipof observation’’ and the teaching of history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(4), 485–507.

Therriault, G. (2008). Postures epistemologiques que developpent des etudiants des profils sciences ettechnologies et univers social au cours de leur formation initiale a l’enseignement secondaire: uneanalyse de leurs croyances et de leurs rapports aux savoirs [The epistemological postures developedby science and technology and social universe students during their initial training for secondaryschool teaching: An analysis of their beliefs and their relationship to knowledge]. Unpublished doctoralthesis. Universite du Quebec a Rimouski and Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

Therriault, G., & Bader, B. (2009). Demarche d’enseignement interdisciplinaire en sciences au secondaire.Un debat sur les changements climatiques pour une education citoyenne [The interdisciplinaryapproach to science teaching in secondary school: A discussion on climate change for citizenship


123

http://www.acelf.ca/revue

http://www.acelf.ca/revue

education]. Nouvelle CSQ—Bulletin du CRIRES. http://www.csq.qc.net/publications/nouvelles-csq.html.

Therriault, G., & Harvey, L. (2011). Postures epistemologiques que developpent de futurs enseignants desciences et de sciences humaines lors des cours de formation disciplinaire et pratique: l’apport d’unerecherche mixte [The epistemological postures developed by pre-service science and human scienceteachers during their training in their subjects and teaching practice: The findings of joint research].Recherches qualitatives, 30(2), 71–95.

Therriault, G., Harvey, L., & Jonnaert, P. (2010). Croyances epistemologiques de futurs enseignants dusecondaire: des differences entre les profils et une evolution en cours de formation [The epistemo-logical beliefs of pre-service secondary teachers: Differences by profile and changes during training].Mesure et evaluation en education, 33(1), 1–30.

Van der Maren, J.-M. (2003). La recherche appliquee en pedagogie [Applied research in pedagogy].Brussels: De Boeck Universite.

Venturini, P. (2007). L’envie d’apprendre les sciences. Motivation, attitudes, rapport aux savoirs scien-tifiques [The desire to study sciences: Motivation, attitude, relationship with scientific knowledge].Paris: Fabert.

Virta, A. (2002). Becoming a history teacher: Observations on the beliefs and growth of student teachers.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 687–698.

Yeager, E., & Davis, O. L. (1995). Between campus and classroom: Secondary student-teachers’ thinkingabout historical texts. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(1), 1–8.

Author Biographies

Genevieve Therriault (Canada) holds a Ph.D. in education from the Universite du Quebec a Rimouski(UQAR). Since 2009, she is a professor at the UQAR, where she directs the master and doctoral educationprogramme. She was a post-doctoral scholar at the Research Centre on Academic Success (CRIRES), at theUniversite Laval in Quebec. She is affiliated with CRIRES, the Research Group on Learning andSocialization (APPSO), and the Research Centre on Environmental Education and Training and Eco-Citizenship (Centr’ERE). Her interests include epistemology and the issue of the individual’s relationshipwith knowledge in teacher training and in training in general. She has worked as a secondary school teacher,lecturer and author of teaching guides.

Leon Harvey (Canada) is a professor of cognitive psychology and learning at the Universite du Quebec aRimouski (UQAR). He holds a doctorate in psychology from the Universite Laval and was a post-doctoralscholar at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA.


123

http://www.csq.qc.net/publications/nouvelles-csq.html

http://www.csq.qc.net/publications/nouvelles-csq.html

Documents

Epistemological beliefs and their relationship to the knowledge of preservice secondary school teachers