Cited by 143Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesScience Education and PedagogyEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Understanding and Promoting Thinking About Knowledge: Origins, Issues, and Future Directions of Research on Epistemic Cognition

Sandoval, William A., Greene, Jeffrey A., Bråten, Ivar·2016·Review of Research in Education

Abstract

Epistemic cognition is the thinking that people do about what and how they know. Education has long been concerned with promoting reflection on knowledge and processes of knowing, but research into epistemic cognition began really in the past half century, with a tremendous expansion in the past 20 years. This review summarizes the broad range of psychological and education research that comprises the study of epistemic cognition, and it identifies various fault lines that currently prevent coherent synthesis of theoretical models and empirical findings. The fault lines include differences in how scholars conceptualize knowledge and cognition, and the contextual nature of epistemic cognition, with consequent differences in accounts of individual development, as well as in research methods. In the coming century, research that can integrate findings among individual, situative, and cultural accounts of cognition may enable the advancement of coherent models of epistemic cognition and its development and support improved educational efforts aimed at such development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/0091732x16669319

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Changes in teachers' beliefs about the potential benefits of dialogic pedagogy are required, suggesting a link between teachers' understandings of dialogue and their endorsement and implementation of reasoned argumentation for understanding.

    “Furthermore, changes in teachers' beliefs about the potential benefits of dialogic pedagogy are required, suggesting a link between teachers' understandings of dialogue and their endorsement and implementation of reasoned argumentation for understanding (Sandoval, Greene, and Bråten 2016).”

    From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Sandoval, Greene, and Bråten 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Venue
Review of Research in Education
Published
2016-03
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
457-496
ISSN
  • 0091-732X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1038
OpenAlex
W2772482154
Cited by
143
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7
FWCI
24.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Review of Research in Education (publishedVersion)
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
epistemic cognition, conceptualization of knowledge, cognitive development, situated cognition, cultural cognition, individual cognition

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