Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology
Abstract
Psychological and educational researchers have developed a flourishing research program on epistemological dimensions of cognition (epistemic cognition). Contemporary philosophers investigate many epistemological topics that are highly relevant to this program but that have not featured in research on epistemic cognition. We argue that integrating these topics into psychological models of epistemic cognition is likely to improve the explanatory and predictive power of these models. We thus propose and explicate a philosophically grounded framework for epistemic cognition that includes five components: (a) epistemic aims and epistemic value; (b) the structure of knowledge and other epistemic achievements; (c) the sources and justification of knowledge and other epistemic achievements, and the related epistemic stances; (d) epistemic virtues and vices; and (e) reliable and unreliable processes for achieving epistemic aims. We further argue for a fine-grained, context-specific analysis of cognitions within the five components.
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?
Dialogic teaching in language arts classrooms involves cultivating a dialogic reading stance among teachers and students that is open to multiple interpretations and critique of text information.
“Dialogic teaching in language arts classrooms involves cultivating a dialogic reading stance among teachers and students that is open to multiple interpretations and critique of text information (Chinn, Buckland, and Samarapungavan 2011;Soter et al. 2008).”
From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Chinn, Buckland, and Samarapungavan 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 151 · Cited by 524
- Authors
- CHINN, C. A., BUCKLAND, L. A., & SAMARAPUNGAVAN, A.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Venue
- Educational Psychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 141-167
- ISSN
- 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6985
- OpenAlex
- W2002721484
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2026: 62 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 34.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- epistemic cognition, epistemic goals, epistemic value, knowledge structure, epistemic justification, epistemic stance, intellectual virtues, epistemic vices, cognitive models of learning
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