认识论信念的内涵方面

Anna Schreck, Jana Groß Ophoff, Benjamin Rott
{"title":"认识论信念的内涵方面","authors":"Anna Schreck, Jana Groß Ophoff, Benjamin Rott","doi":"10.31129/lumat.12.1.2138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Various studies have shown that epistemological beliefs affect personal learning and teaching performances. Therefore, epistemological beliefs have become an attractive object of research with different methods of survey. A distinction can be made between denotative and connotative aspects of beliefs, the former being reflected upon, explicit beliefs, whereas the latter being associative and evaluative judgements on (in our case: mathematical) epistemological beliefs. The present study used the instrument Connotative Aspects of Epistemological Beliefs by Stahl and Bromme to collect data from university students in mathematics in the years of 2017, 2018 and 2019. The pseudo-longitudinal data analysis showed 1. that students hold different connotative beliefs regarding the two domains “mathematics at university” and “mathematics at school” regardless their study progress, 2. that the beliefs remain relatively stable within the domains overtime and 3. that – considering the different mathematical programmes of study (e.g., pre-service teachers vs. mathematics majors) – the students’ connotative beliefs mainly differ regarding beliefs about the simplicity of mathematical knowledge at school.","PeriodicalId":269228,"journal":{"name":"LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs\",\"authors\":\"Anna Schreck, Jana Groß Ophoff, Benjamin Rott\",\"doi\":\"10.31129/lumat.12.1.2138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Various studies have shown that epistemological beliefs affect personal learning and teaching performances. Therefore, epistemological beliefs have become an attractive object of research with different methods of survey. A distinction can be made between denotative and connotative aspects of beliefs, the former being reflected upon, explicit beliefs, whereas the latter being associative and evaluative judgements on (in our case: mathematical) epistemological beliefs. The present study used the instrument Connotative Aspects of Epistemological Beliefs by Stahl and Bromme to collect data from university students in mathematics in the years of 2017, 2018 and 2019. The pseudo-longitudinal data analysis showed 1. that students hold different connotative beliefs regarding the two domains “mathematics at university” and “mathematics at school” regardless their study progress, 2. that the beliefs remain relatively stable within the domains overtime and 3. that – considering the different mathematical programmes of study (e.g., pre-service teachers vs. mathematics majors) – the students’ connotative beliefs mainly differ regarding beliefs about the simplicity of mathematical knowledge at school.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.12.1.2138\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.12.1.2138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

各种研究表明,认识论信念会影响个人的学习和教学表现。因此,认识论信念已成为一个颇具吸引力的研究对象,其调查方法也不尽相同。可以将认识论信念区分为表意信念和内涵信念,前者是反思性的、明确的信念,而后者则是对认识论信念(在我们的例子中是数学)的联想性和评价性判断。本研究使用了 Stahl 和 Bromme 所著的《认识论信念的内涵方面》这一工具,收集了 2017、2018 和 2019 年数学专业大学生的数据。伪纵向数据分析显示:1. 无论学习进度如何,学生对 "大学数学 "和 "学校数学 "这两个领域持有不同的内涵信念;2. 这些信念在领域内随着时间的推移保持相对稳定;3. 考虑到不同的数学学习课程(如职前教师与数学专业),学生的内涵信念主要在学校数学知识的简单性信念方面存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs
Various studies have shown that epistemological beliefs affect personal learning and teaching performances. Therefore, epistemological beliefs have become an attractive object of research with different methods of survey. A distinction can be made between denotative and connotative aspects of beliefs, the former being reflected upon, explicit beliefs, whereas the latter being associative and evaluative judgements on (in our case: mathematical) epistemological beliefs. The present study used the instrument Connotative Aspects of Epistemological Beliefs by Stahl and Bromme to collect data from university students in mathematics in the years of 2017, 2018 and 2019. The pseudo-longitudinal data analysis showed 1. that students hold different connotative beliefs regarding the two domains “mathematics at university” and “mathematics at school” regardless their study progress, 2. that the beliefs remain relatively stable within the domains overtime and 3. that – considering the different mathematical programmes of study (e.g., pre-service teachers vs. mathematics majors) – the students’ connotative beliefs mainly differ regarding beliefs about the simplicity of mathematical knowledge at school.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信