Dimensionality and Disciplinary Differences in Personal Epistemology.

By B. Hofer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2000

970 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b1900da4cdefd0fe98754ad68621cea3a2e9b7d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Cram School Students’ Conceptions of Learning and Learning Science in Taiwan (2008, background): “Furthermore, studies about student epistemology also revealed disciplinary differences (Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Buehl et al., 2002; Hofer, 2000).”
Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research (2014, background): “to what extent is knowledge justified through evaluation of ‘evidence’ or personal experience?) (Hofer, 2000).”
Epistemological beliefs across cultures: critique and analysis of beliefs structure studies (2004, methodology): “While Schommer’s questionnaire focused on north American university/college students, Lin (2001) used the questionnaire for Taiwan elementary school students without modification/ adaptation.”
Examining the Relationship Between Students’ Understanding of the Nature of Models and Conceptual Learning in Biology, Physics, and Chemistry (2011, methodology): “…has revealed differences in students’ understanding of the nature of knowledge for different academic subjects such as science and psychology (Hofer, 2000), psychology and biology (Estes, Chandler, Horvath, & Backus, 2003), life sciences, analytic sciences, and the humanities (Royce & Mos,…”
Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: a functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition (2010, methodology): “All participants ran through the same experimental procedure as in the previous studies: They filled in the domain-general EBI (Jacobson and Jehng 1999) and the domain-specific CAEB (Stahl and Bromme 2007) and DEBQ ( Hofer 2000 ) as indicators of their epistemological beliefs, and were subsequently ”
Personal Epistemology Research: Implications for Learning and Teaching (2001, background): “There is also some empirical support for such a representation (Hofer, 2000).”
On the Goals of Epistemic Education: Promoting Apt Epistemic Performance (2018, background): “In brief, beliefs models construe epistemic cognition as a set of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing (Hofer, 2000; Schommer, 1990).”
Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information (2010, background): “ Hofer 2000 ), who despite conceiving epistemic beliefs as multidimensional constructs, think that the individuals’ views are not a collection of independent representations but rather a coherent integration of compatible perspectives, that is, 84 L. Mason et al.”
Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change (2014, background): “These beliefs may differ to some degree by discipline (Hofer, 2000); for example, individuals may think that knowledge in psychology is less certain and less likely to be handed down by authority than knowledge in physics.”
Epistemic Metacognition in the Context of Information Searching on the Web (2008, background): “As pointed out by Hofer (2004), this component of metacognition implies intentionality in dealing with knowledge in the knowing process.”
A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship Between Epistemic Cognition and Academic Achievement (2018, background): “Many scholars have found differences in participants’ endorsement of epistemic cognition factors across academic domains (e.g., Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Greene, Torney-Purta, & Azevedo, 2010; Hofer, 2000).”