Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Discipline-specific Socialization: A Comparative Study
Authors: Tabak, Iris
Weinstock, Michael
Zviling-Beiser, Hilla
Issue Date: Jun-2010
Publisher: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS)
Citation: Tabak, I., Weinstock, M., & Zviling-Beiser, H. (2010). Discipline-specific Socialization: A Comparative Study. In Gomez, K., Lyons, L., & Radinsky, J. (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) - Volume 1, Full Papers (pp. 842-848). Chicago IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Abstract: Do different disciplines cultivate different epistemologies? We draw on the epistemological framework of D. Kuhn et al. that delineates three perspectives: absolutist, maintaining that knowledge is objective and immutable; multiplist, maintaining a radical relativism; and evaluativist, maintaining a qualified relativism. We conjectured that typical instruction in the humanities would tend to foster evaluativist views more than typiacl instruction in the sciences. Twenty biology majors and twenty history majors evaluated competing accounts in biology, history and judicial contexts. Structured interviews concerning these accounts were used to assign each participant an epistemologicalview in each discipline. These results were considered in conjunction with learners' reports of their educational experiences. We were disappointed to find that there was an overall tendency toward absolutism. Our main finding is that students are distinguished by major and epistemological view, and that typical history instruction more than typical science instruction seems to foster evaluativist views in history.
Appears in Collections:ICLS 2010

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
842-848.pdf243.41 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.