Overlapping (nonlinear) epistemic belief profiles are a systematic phenomenon across grades and tracks, not limited to few students or specific contexts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Multiplistic profiles appeared in seven of 12 samples and evidence-based profiles in five of 12 samples, with the highest percentage being 31% in an elementary school sample. → Julia Schiefer 2022

Evidence¶

Julia Schiefer 2022¶

Julia Schiefer, Peter A. Edelsbrunner, Andrea Bernholt, Nele Kampa, Andreas Nehring. (2022). Epistemic Beliefs in Science—A Systematic Integration of Evidence From Multiple Studies. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive analysis of profile frequencies across 12 samples (Table 2). The authors found both overlapping profiles in the same samples and report that 'in some samples, rather high percentages of students showed one of these profiles, the highest percentage being 31% in an elementary school sample.'

"These findings indicate that these two types of profiles do not present a phenomenon of a developmental stage that occurs in just a few students or in very specific contexts."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Less sophisticated epistemic belief profiles are more prevalent in younger students and nonacademic tracks, while sophisticated profiles are more prevalent in academic tracks and higher grade levels — related
• Nonlinear epistemic belief profiles show a diverging pattern for science self-concept: multiplistic profiles score similarly or lower than absolutistic, while evidence-based profiles score similarly or higher than sophisticated — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• A positive relation exists between the level of sophistication of epistemic belief profiles and socioeconomic status, with profile z-score ranges from -0.25 to 0.45 — related