Epistemic Stances

A new teacher reads three textbooks and uses everything they say. Five years later, the same teacher reads the same kinds of textbooks and ignores half of what they say, because their own classroom evidence contradicts it. The teacher has not become arrogant. The teacher has moved through epistemic stances.

Epistemic stances are ways of knowing. They are also developmental. The way a teacher relates to knowledge changes as the teacher matures, and reflection changes with it.

What an epistemic stance is

An epistemic stance is a person’s basic relationship to knowledge: where they think knowledge comes from, who they trust, and how they decide whether to believe something.

Two key facts about epistemic stances.

1. They are processes. Not personality traits, but practices that develop with experience and feedback.
2. They are developmental. The quality of reflection changes as a person matures, and new stances emerge.

A reflective teacher tends to move through these stances over a career. Where they are at any moment shapes what their reflection can do.

The four stances

There are four stances. They run from most dependent on authority to most rigorous in handling evidence.

Absolute knowing

The absolute knower seeks to learn by receiving knowledge from authorities. The expert says X, so X is true. The textbook says Y, so Y is the answer.

For a teacher in the absolute stance, reflection is mostly an attempt to apply expert ideas correctly. If the lesson did not work, the teacher concludes that they did not follow the expert’s method well enough. The fix is more loyalty to the method.

This stance is normal for new teachers. It can become a trap if it lasts. A teacher who never moves past this stance is permanently dependent on someone else for what to think.

The risk: absolute knowers only accept information from authority. Information from their own classroom, from students, or from their own observation does not register the same way.

Transitional knowing

The transitional stance recognises that some knowledge is certain and some is uncertain. The teacher starts to notice that experts disagree, that one method fails where another works, and that not every question has a clean answer.

Reflection at this stage becomes more honest. The teacher asks, “which expert is right for this situation?” rather than “what does the expert say?” There is a sense of being between two ways of knowing.

This stance is uncomfortable. The teacher may flip between confidence and confusion, depending on the day.

Independent knowing

In the independent stance, the teacher begins to form their own views. Different opinions are valued. The teacher is no longer waiting for an expert to tell them what to think.

Reflection becomes generative. The teacher not only applies methods but adapts them, combines them, or sets them aside when the situation calls for something else.

The risk at this stage is that independent knowing can become independent of evidence. A teacher who values their own view above all can drift into opinion without rigour. Independent knowing is necessary, but it is not the destination.

Contextual knowing

The contextual knower judges all information on the basis of evidence within context. They are highly critical in pursuing understanding. They examine both data and their own perceptions and values.

Reflection at this stage is the most rigorous. The teacher considers the source, the method, the context, and their own biases before settling on a view. They balance their own classroom evidence against multiple sources, and they remain open to changing their mind.

A contextual knower is not someone who has all the answers. It is someone who has a careful way of working out which answers fit which contexts.

How the stances develop

The stances are not fixed. They emerge with experience, feedback, and reflection. A teacher does not jump from absolute to contextual. They pass through transitional and independent stages along the way.

Three things help the development.

1. Exposure to disagreement. A teacher who only meets one view stays in the absolute stance. A teacher who meets serious disagreement is forced to think.
2. Honest feedback. A teacher who receives feedback that contradicts their methods, but is delivered well, is given a reason to move forward.
3. Reflection on their own thinking. Looking at how they came to a conclusion, not just at the conclusion itself.

The development can also stall or reverse. A stressful environment, hostile feedback, or a culture that punishes questioning can push a teacher back into the absolute stance, even after they have moved past it.

Why the stance shows up in reflection

Reflection looks different at each stance.

The reflection in the contextual row is much harder to do, but it is also much more useful. The reflection in the absolute row is easy and shallow.

What this means for a reflective practitioner

Three practical points.

1. Notice your own stance. When you reflect, where are you sitting? If most of your sentences quote experts, you are mostly in the absolute stance. If they only quote your own opinions, you may have drifted into ungrounded independent knowing.

2. Aim for the contextual stance, but accept that getting there is slow. No one starts there. Many years of experience, feedback, and disciplined reflection are needed.

3. Use a critical friend or mentor to nudge you forward. Stages do not change on their own. Conversation with someone who challenges your stance is one of the fastest ways to move.

Flashcard

What is the difference between independent knowing and contextual knowing?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Independent forms own views; contextual judges all views, including own, on evidence within context

The independent knower stops being dependent on experts but can drift into opinion. The contextual knower keeps the rigour: they weigh their own views against evidence, sources, and context, and they examine their own perceptions and values along with the data.