Impact of Different Levels of Epistemic Beliefs on Learning Processes and Outcomes in Vocational Education and Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epistemic beliefs are individuals’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Modelling them is currently based on two central assumptions. First, epistemic beliefs are conceptualized as a multi-level construct, i.e. they exist on a general, academic, domain-specific and/or topic-specific level. Second, research assumes that their more concrete levels predict learning processes and outcomes more strongly than their more general levels. However, studies directly investigating these assumptions are still missing. 975 prospective retailers, wholesalers, bank assistants, and industrial assistants reported their grades and learning motivation in accounting and marketing as well as their epistemic beliefs in an effort to prove both assumptions within the context of Vocational Education and Training. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis confirms the multi-level conceptualization of epistemic beliefs. The findings here indicate a superiority of domain- and topic-specific epistemic beliefs compared to general epistemic beliefs for predicting motivation and achievement in marketing and accounting. The study concludes that domainand topic-specific epistemic beliefs explain different facets of learning phenomena. In addition, further research should concentrate more on both the domain- and topic-specific levels.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".