Developing and evaluating the extended epistemic vigilance framework
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10219302 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tom Bielik (0000-0002-8227-5870, Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands, corresponding author), Moritz Krell (0000-0003-2226-0383, IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Kiel Germany) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 62 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 869-895 |
| Publication date | 2025-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-4308 • E-ISSN: 1098-2736 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/tea.21983 |
| OpenAlex | W4402542649 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 44 |
In science education, epistemic vigilance plays a key role in the development of students' critical thinking by supporting students' abilities to evaluate the expertise level of the source and to evaluate the claim itself, using rigorous scientific standards and appropriate argumentation heuristics. Based on previous studies, which suggested two aspects of epistemic vigilance—reflecting the source of information and the claim that is made—we developed the Extended Epistemic Vigilance Framework (EEVF) that includes an additional aspect of evaluating the receiver. In an empirical exploratory pilot study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of an EEVF‐based category system and investigated to what extent the EEVF can be used to characterize changes in biology graduate students' epistemic vigilance after participating in a critical thinking course. Results show that the EEVF‐based category system includes reliable and valid categories for identifying students' epistemic vigilance. A statistically significant increase with a small effect size was found in students' epistemic vigilance regarding the reliability of the source and the references used to support the claim following their participation in the critical thinking course. However, a statistically significant decrease with a small effect size was found regarding the awareness of the aspects of the one‐sidedness of the claim, the context of the claim, and cognitive biases and socioemotional influences on the receiver. In general, these findings indicate that the EEVF offers an improved framework to analyze students' epistemic vigilance more comprehensively
Cognitive psychology · Educational research · Epistemology · Mathematics education · Science education · Vigilance (psychology) · Advanced Text Analysis Techniques · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Philosophy · Psychology
Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice
Fostering Students' Creativity and Critical Thinking
Education for Sustainable Development Goals
Salvaging science literacy
Critical Thinking
An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers
Critical thinking in education
Effect size estimates
On the Goals of Epistemic Education
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
A review of educational responses to the “post-truth” condition
Grasp of evidence
Views of nature of science questionnaire
The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science
The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science
Promoting students’ argument comprehension and evaluation skills
Students’ perceptions of socio-scientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking
Who Speaks for Science
Ten competencies for the science misinformation crisis
Science education in an age of misinformation
Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life
Fighting “bad science” in the information age
Epistemic networks and the social nature of public engagement with science
When science becomes too easy
Coefficient Kappa
Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse
Epistemic Vigilance
A Three‐Tiered Framework for Proactive Critical Evaluation During Online Inquiry
Stop the spread
Patterns of belief and trust in climate change information
Science literacy in the twenty-first century
Normative Social Influence is Underdetected
Critical thinking assessment
| Citations per year | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |