Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students' beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an intervention designed to foster epistemic change over the course of 1 semester. The intervention was based on constructivist teaching practices that incorporated teacher modeling of critical thinking of content, evaluation of multiple approaches to solving problems, and making connections to prior knowledge. Sixty-three students across 2 classrooms (one intervention [n = 31], one control [n = 32]) participated and completed questionnaires 5 times over the semester. Questionnaires measured students' epistemic beliefs, learning strategies, and levels of motivation for their statistics class. Results revealed that for students in the intervention class, their epistemic beliefs shifted midway through the semester, whereas students in the control group maintained a consistent level of beliefs throughout the semester. Intervention students' self-reported use of critical thinking and elaboration strategies also significantly increased midway through the semester, as did their levels of self-efficacy for learning statistics. In contrast, students in the control group maintained a consistent level of strategy use and self-efficacy. Finally, students in the intervention group had a significantly higher final grade compared with those in the control group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it