MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052117450 · doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.515932

The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning With Computer-Based Learning Environments: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

2010· article· en· W2052117450 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey A. Greene, Krista R. Muis, Stephanie Pieschl

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConceptual changeEpistemologySelf-regulated learningProcess (computing)Mathematics educationComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Users benefit most from computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) when they are adept at self-regulated learning (SRL). Learner characteristics, such as epistemic beliefs, influence SRL processing. Therefore, research into learning with CBLEs must account for interactions between epistemic beliefs and SRL. In this article we integrate epistemic belief frameworks and models of SRL, and we argue that both phenomena should be modeled as a dynamic series of events. Such modeling allows for an examination of how various epistemic beliefs may be activated and deactivated through the process of self-regulation. We also show how CBLEs can be used to measure epistemic beliefs in novel ways and study how epistemic beliefs and SRL interact. Finally, we identify areas for future research and educational implications.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational PsychologistSame topicEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesFrench-language works237,207