Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing and evaluating the extended epistemic vigilance framework

Bielik, Tom, Krell, Moritz·2025·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

In science education, epistemic vigilance plays a key role in the development of students' critical thinking by supporting students' abilities to evaluate the expertise level of the source and to evaluate the claim itself, using rigorous scientific standards and appropriate argumentation heuristics. Based on previous studies, which suggested two aspects of epistemic vigilance—reflecting the source of information and the claim that is made—we developed the Extended Epistemic Vigilance Framework (EEVF) that includes an additional aspect of evaluating the receiver. In an empirical exploratory pilot study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of an EEVF‐based category system and investigated to what extent the EEVF can be used to characterize changes in biology graduate students' epistemic vigilance after participating in a critical thinking course. Results show that the EEVF‐based category system includes reliable and valid categories for identifying students' epistemic vigilance. A statistically significant increase with a small effect size was found in students' epistemic vigilance regarding the reliability of the source and the references used to support the claim following their participation in the critical thinking course. However, a statistically significant decrease with a small effect size was found regarding the awareness of the aspects of the one‐sidedness of the claim, the context of the claim, and cognitive biases and socioemotional influences on the receiver. In general, these findings indicate that the EEVF offers an improved framework to analyze students' epistemic vigilance more comprehensively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.21983

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014, Standards for educational and psychological testing
  2. 10.1007/s11191-021-00257-4 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/00219266.2022.2026806 · DOI
  6. 10.1177/001316448104100307 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1002/tea.21971 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/tea.21468 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1080/00405849309543594 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1002/sce.20414 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1002/tea.21941 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/jaal.1004 · DOI
  14. 10.1037/a0024338 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0231387 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/s40573-020-00111-0 · DOI
  17. Hitchcock D., 2020, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
  18. 10.1002/tea.21967 · DOI
  19. Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
  20. 10.1080/09500693.2020.1759843 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s10763-023-10364-z · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0 · DOI
  23. 10.2307/2529786 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1002/tea.10034 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/00461520.2015.1113134 · DOI
  26. 10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1007/s11618-023-01147-x · DOI
  29. National Research Council, 2012, A framework for K‐12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
  30. 10.1080/09500693.2024.2331980 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1002/sce.21790 · DOI
  32. Osborne J., 2022, Science education in an age of misinformation
  33. 10.1002/tea.21316 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/001318800440579 · DOI
  35. Rieckmann M., 2017, Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives
  36. 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032 · DOI
  37. Russell B., 2004, Sceptical essays
  38. 10.1177/0963662516680311 · DOI
  39. 10.4135/9781529682571 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Schwarz C. V., 2017, Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices
  41. 10.1002/sce.21581 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1098/rsif.2019.0564 · DOI
  43. 10.1002/tea.21696 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1787/62212c37-en · DOI
  45. 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Wirtz M. A., 2002, Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Bielik, T., & Krell, M.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands
  • IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Kiel Germany
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-09-14
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
869-895
ISSN
  • 0022-4308
  • 1098-2736
Cited by
16
References
6
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review