The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Handbook of Epistemic Cognition
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to critically review theory and research on relevant aspects of the measurement of epistemic cognition, and to highlight the changes that have occurred in this area of investigation in the last decades. To deal with measurement implies addressing theoretical issues, as measurement is strictly related to theory. The chapter first introduces the classic approaches to the study of epistemic cognition. Each approach is characterized in terms of construct definition and related measurement. It will be evident that the construct has been conceived in different ways, and consequently has also been measured through different instruments. These are critically reviewed to highlight potentials and limitations. The chapter then introduces more recent approaches that have led to articulating and expanding the construct, as well as to outlining how new approaches to measurement may overcome the limitations of the instruments most commonly used. The issues of the specific level at which to measure epistemic cognition, and the cultural aspects that need to be considered are also presented because of their implications for measurement. Finally, current trends are presented and the features of proposed measures are outlined. The chapter ends with overall implications for theory, research, and practice.
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.
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
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · cited 1×
“Persuasive texts aim to change attitudes or beliefs, often about controversial issues, by supporting a single viewpoint (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and as such they are either one-sided or two-sided (Murphy, 2001, 2007; Murphy & Alexander, 2004, 2008).”
BackgroundAction and embodiment within situated human interaction
Goodwin, C. (2000) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00096-x · Cited by 3,073
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 · Cited by 279 · cited 1×
“…reader individual differences that influence comprehension of arguments, including the extent to which readers hold knowledge related to the issue (Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005; Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007; Rouet, Britt, Mason, & Perfetti, 1996), beliefs and attitudes related to the issue (Wolfe, Britt,…”
BackgroundPromoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.76.1.59-92 · Cited by 279
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.2.203 · Cited by 103
Investigating Instruction for Improving Revision of Argumentative Essays
Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088310387891 · Cited by 92
Cited by
Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?
Sharon, A. J., & Baram‐Tsabari, A. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21581 · Cited by 196
Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21468 · Cited by 165
Education for a “Post-Truth” World: New Directions for Research and Practice
Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2021) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x20940683 · Cited by 163
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x16669319 · Cited by 143
Self-citationQuality Talk: Developing Students’ Discourse to Promote High-level Comprehension
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Li, M., Montalbano, C., & Wei, L. (2018) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831218771303 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2016-01-22
- OpenAlex
- W2399135525
- Cited by
- 644
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 59.06
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.