Cited by 12Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesScience Education and PedagogyEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Investigating professed and enacted epistemic beliefs about the uncertainty of scientific knowledge when students evaluate scientific controversies

Open access
Lang, Fabian, Kammerer, Yvonne, Stürmer, Kathleen, Gerjets, Peter·2021·European Journal of Psychology of Education

Abstract

Prior research on epistemic beliefs, that is, individuals’ views about knowledge and knowing, has mainly focused either on individuals’ professed beliefs (as reported in questionnaires) or on their enacted beliefs (as indicated during task processing). However, little is known about the relation between professed and enacted epistemic beliefs. The present study focused on beliefs about the uncertainty of scientific knowledge and investigated both professed and enacted beliefs in the context of evaluations of scientific controversies. Participants were N = 79 university students who first completed a questionnaire that targeted their professed uncertainty beliefs about scientific knowledge. Then, approximately 1 week later, they completed a standardized test in which they evaluated five scientific controversies. Cued retrospective verbal reports were used to measure their enacted uncertainty beliefs while taking the test. Results revealed that professed and enacted uncertainty beliefs were interrelated and that both variables predicted individuals’ performance with regard to the evaluation of scientific controversies. Furthermore, the effect of professed uncertainty beliefs on controversy-evaluation performance was partly mediated by enacted uncertainty beliefs. The findings of the present study point toward novel theoretical insights and educational implications regarding the relations between professed and enacted beliefs about the uncertainty of scientific knowledge and their role in individuals’ evaluation of scientific controversies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10212-020-00471-8

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lang, F., Kammerer, Y., Stürmer, K., & Gerjets, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (DE)
Corresponding author
Lang, Fabian
Venue
European Journal of Psychology of Education
Published
2020-03-16
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
125-146
ISSN
  • 0256-2928 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-5174
OpenAlex
W3012499095
Cited by
12
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychology of Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
epistemological beliefs, scientific knowledge, scientific controversy, university students, mediation

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