A series of three independent articles explore how the expanded framework for modeling epistemic cognition developed in Chinn, Buckland and Samarapungavan (2011) can advance psychological research. The first study: "Epistemic cognition and understanding the nature of science" investigates relations between the expanded epistemic framework and research into conceptions of the Nature of Science (NOS). This study surveys the conceptions addressed over the history of NOS research, developing a comprehensive analytic framework to trace the scope of the topics that feature in a diverse range of 81 NOS instruments used in six decades of research. By tracing historical change in the kinds of conceptions targeted for investigation, the study reveals how debate about measures and norms has led to new and modified instrumentation. The second study: "Epistemic cognition and reliable processes of knowledge production" investigates an under-researched component of the Chinn et al. (2011) framework - beliefs about the reliable processes by which knowledge is achieved. Interview and written data served to trace the epistemic beliefs about reliable processes of 19 participating undergraduates, as they reasoned about a diverse array of knowledge-generating processes. The data reveals considerable variation amongst participants in the range and kinds of processes and conditions that they considered relevant to the production of knowledge. The third study: "Epistemic growth in model-based reasoning" explores the epistemic criteria implicit in the model-based reasoning of 24 seventh-grade students engaged in inquiry learning. It conducts a fine-grained investigation of the justificatory practices of learners drawn from the classes of four teachers in two dissimilar schools, over a full school year. Data sources comprise participants' written justifications of constructed, peer, group and given models, and their comparative evaluations during model choice. Participating students adopted a complex array of higher-level criteria in their judgments about model quality, and the study provides pedagogically valuable insight into the characteristic strengths and weaknesses of their justificatory practices. Through these three inter-related studies, we argue that the expanded framework represents a viable and productive tool for advancing the field of research into epistemic cognition.
展开▼
