Epistemic Beliefs about Justification Employed by Physics Students and Faculty in Two Different Problem Contexts

Abstract

This study examines the epistemic beliefs about justification employed by physics undergraduate and graduate students and faculty in the context of solving a standard classical physics problem and a frontier physics problem. Data were collected by a think-aloud problem solving session followed by a semi-structured interview conducted with 50 participants, 10 participants at freshmen, seniors, masters, PhD, and faculty levels. Seven modes of justification were identified and used for exploring the relationships between each justification mode and problem context, and expertise level. The data showed that justification modes were not mutually exclusive and many respondents combined different modes in their responses in both problem contexts. Success on solving the standard classical physics problem was not related to any of the justification modes and was independent of expertise level. The strength of the association across the problem contexts for the authoritative, rational, and empirical justification modes fell in the medium range and for the modeling justification mode fell in the large range of practical significance. Expertise level was not related with the empirical and religious justification modes. The strength of the association between the expertise level and the authoritative, rational, experiential, and relativistic justification modes fell in the medium range, and the modeling justification mode fell in the large range of practical significance. The results provide support for the importance of context for the epistemic beliefs about justification and are discussed in terms of the implications for teaching and learning science.