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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“As with the machine heuristic, awareness of this cognitive bias is essential, as it can help individuals to mitigate its effects [67].”
From When the source is a bot: How people adapt their evaluation strategies to assess AI-generated content (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
In the citing paper
“While knowledge of AI and its underlying mechanisms is critical to addressing the machine heuristic, awareness of this cognitive bias is key, as it empowers individuals to counteract it [67].”
From When the source is a bot: How people adapt their evaluation strategies to assess AI-generated content (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
In the citing paper
“Educating individuals to recognize these influences, alongside content and source evaluation, is critical for their epistemic vigilance [67,69].”
From When the source is a bot: How people adapt their evaluation strategies to assess AI-generated content (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
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
SPERBER, D., CLÉMENT, F., HEINTZ, C., MASCARO, O., MERCIER, H., ORIGGI, G., & WILSON, D. (2010) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x · Cited by 1,795
Normative social influence is underdetected
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167208316691 · Cited by 1,772
Critical Thinking and Science Education
Bailin, S. (2002) · Science & Education · doi:10.1023/a:1016042608621 · Cited by 404
Influences affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf02207765 · Cited by 315
Allchin, D. (2001) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/10636140152947786 · Cited by 97
Ten competencies for the science misinformation crisis
Allchin, D. (2023) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21746 · Cited by 62
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014, Standards for educational and psychological testing
- 10.1007/s11191-021-00257-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968 · DOI
- 10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388 · DOI
- 10.1080/00219266.2022.2026806 · DOI
- 10.1177/001316448104100307 · DOI
- 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/tea.21971 · DOI
- 10.1002/tea.21468 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00405849309543594 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sce.20414 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/tea.21941 · DOI
- 10.1002/jaal.1004 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0024338 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0231387 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40573-020-00111-0 · DOI
- Hitchcock D., 2020, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
- 10.1002/tea.21967 · DOI
- Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
- 10.1080/09500693.2020.1759843 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10763-023-10364-z · DOI
- 10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0 · DOI
- 10.2307/2529786 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/tea.10034 · DOI
- 10.1080/00461520.2015.1113134 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0140525X10000968 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11618-023-01147-x · DOI
- National Research Council, 2012, A framework for K‐12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
- 10.1080/09500693.2024.2331980 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sce.21790 · DOI
- Osborne J., 2022, Science education in an age of misinformation
- 10.1002/tea.21316 · DOI
- 10.1080/001318800440579 · DOI
- Rieckmann M., 2017, Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives
- 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032 · DOI
- Russell B., 2004, Sceptical essays
- 10.1177/0963662516680311 · DOI
- 10.4135/9781529682571 · DOI · Paper page
- Schwarz C. V., 2017, Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices
- 10.1002/sce.21581 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rsif.2019.0564 · DOI
- 10.1002/tea.21696 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1787/62212c37-en · DOI
- 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
Vendrell, M., & Johnston, S.-K. (2026) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100572 · Cited by 43
“Such habits cultivate what Bielik and Krell (2025) describe as epistemic vigilance : the capacity to critically assess both the credibility of information sources and the validity of their claims, using structured reasoning and scientific heuristics.”
Dabran-Zivan, S., Klein-Avraham, I., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2026) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345300 · Cited by 6
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