Prior epistemic thinking frameworks were insufficient for addressing educational problems because they described epistemic thinking as broad beliefs or perspectives rather than situated practices¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Developmental and epistemic beliefs frameworks did not adequately capture the practical and situated aspects of epistemic thinking, including which particular criteria or strategies learners use during inquiry. → Sarit Barzilai & Clark A. Chinn 2024

Evidence¶

Sarit Barzilai & Clark A. Chinn 2024¶

Sarit Barzilai & Clark A. Chinn. (2024). The AIR and Apt-AIR Frameworks of Epistemic Performance and Growth: Reflections on Educational Theory Development. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09927-5

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The authors' interpretive analysis of two prevalent psychological approaches to epistemic thinking—the developmental approach and the epistemic beliefs approach—argues they fell short of explaining learners' performance in their studies. They report that "it also mattered which particular criteria or strategies learners were using as they engaged in inquiry and how well these were adapted to their tasks."

"One main issue was that these frameworks described epistemic thinking as a set of broad beliefs or perspectives, which did not seem to adequately capture the practical and situated aspects of epistemic thinking"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Heterogeneity-seeking modeling curricula surface epistemic commitments in most students, including care-based commitments absent from prior frameworks — related
• Academic historians' epistemic processes extend well beyond source analysis and writing — related
• Epistemic games reveal unacknowledged disciplinary differences in interdisciplinary teams — related