Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When people believed that knowledge is uncertain, they were more likely to use strategies to check for consistency in the information they encountered.
“This aligns with the findings of Richter and Schmid (2010), who observed that when people believed that knowledge is uncertain, they were more likely to use strategies to check for consistency in the information they encountered.”
From “ <scp>ChatGPT</scp> can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of <scp>ChatGPT</scp> content into academic writing (2025) · cites this paper as Richter and Schmid (2010)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 120
- Authors
- Richter, T., & Schmid, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cologne (DE)
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Richter, Tobias
- ORCID
- Richter, Tobias
- Venue
- Metacognition and Learning
- Published
- 2009-01-24
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-65
- ISSN
- 1556-1623 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-1631
- OpenAlex
- W2031621135
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 8.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Metacognition and Learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Keywords
- epistemological beliefs, epistemic strategies, student self-regulation, metacognitive knowledge, connected knowing, epistemic curiosity, learning objectives, extrinsic motivation, learning from text, knowledge validation, text familiarity
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
