Students’ conceptions of knowledge, information, and truth

Alexander, Patricia A.; Winters, Fielding I.; Loughlin, Sandra M.; Grossnickle, Emily M.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.004

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, until recently, research has rarely addressed whether the processes entailed in an unconstrained searching condition could potentially assist readers in the construction of meaning, knowledge, and perspectives on a controversy. Many researchers and educators committed to literacies in the digital age have argued that what counts as core competence for 21st‐century readers must be more than a set of information‐managing skills, but rather include a configuration of abilities, mind‐sets, or attitudes for knowledge building through the critical analysis and creative integration of multiple ideas and perspectives (Alexander, Winters, Loughlin, & Grossnickle, ; Buckingham, ; Gilster, ). The array of processes that the reader as a knower entertains in accessing, evaluating, and using multiple sources in the unprecedented information spaces of the Internet, as demonstrated in this study, is integral to digital literacies for knowledge building and productive learning (Bråten et al., ; Goldman & Scardamalia, ; Greene et al., ; Hofer, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Cho

Woodward

2017

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how the beliefs that adolescent readers hold about knowledge and knowing are activated during online reading. The research questions center on the pattern of these readers’ epistemic processes through which more or less productive learning occurs. High school students performed a critical online reading task on a controversial topic; 10 more successful readers and 10 less successful readers were then selected based on their topic knowledge gain and the quality of the questions that they constructed in response to their online reading. The epistemic processes of these two groups’ 20 readers were inferred from their concurrent verbal reports. Verbal reports were coded and classified qualitatively until concrete types of epistemic processing were recognized; the coded data were then quantified for statistical group comparisons to identify and interpret emerging patterns. The results indicated that more successful online readers tended to engage in higher order epistemic processes when judging information sources, monitoring their knowing processes, and regulating their alternative knowledge‐seeking actions, whereas the epistemic actions of their less successful counterparts were more often disconnected and tended to function at a surface level. Cross‐categorical associations were found among epistemic judgment, monitoring, and regulation, suggesting that epistemic processes operate interactively. Implications of the study's results are discussed in relation to literacy research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Cho

Woodward

2017

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the constructivist theory of teaching and learning, learners' preconceptions, their knowledge and beliefs about a given area before receiving instruction, are a central element of the teaching and learning process [1]. With respect to scientific disciplinary knowledge, learners' preconceptions can be either incorrect (= misconceptions [2]) or only appropriate in everyday contexts (= everyday conceptions [3]). In the long run, these preconceptions need to be systematically developed into scientifically appropriate concepts (= scientific concepts).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professionalizing Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Misconceptions about Learning and the Brain through Conceptual Change

Grospietsch

Mayer

2018

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific concepts of learning and the brain are relevant for biology teachers in two ways: Firstly, the topic is an object of instruction (e.g., long-term potentiation). Secondly, biology teachers must guide their students towards sustainable learning. Consequently, their own understanding of learning and the brain has an especially far-reaching influence on students. Pre-service biology teachers endorse so-called “neuromyths,” misconceptions on the subject of learning and the brain (e.g., the existence of learning styles) even though they cover neuroscientific content during their studies. These misconceptions remain relatively stable throughout university education and practical training. In this paper, we transfer the teaching and learning model of conceptual change to the university context. We investigate whether and to what extent a university course developed in accordance with a professional conceptual change model can reduce pre-service biology teachers’ endorsement of neuromyths. In a pre-post-design, 57 university students were asked about their professional knowledge, beliefs, neuromyths, and perception and utilization of the university course. We found a positive effect of the intervention on all three elements of students’ conceptual understanding. The results show that explicitly refuting misconceptions about learning and the brain (e.g., via conceptual change texts) helps to professionalize neuromyths.

show abstract

“…Yet, rather than being concerned with the nature of knowledge, some participants were concerned with the nature of information a source provided. Previous research has pointed out the need to consider not only the knowledge-related beliefs of students growing up in the Internet age but also their beliefs about information and truth (Alexander, Winters, Loughlin, & Grossnickle, 2012; Lankshear, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Undergraduate Students’ Justifications for Source Selection in a Digital Academic Context

List

Grossnickle

Alexander

2015

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To complete any academic tasks using information from the Internet, undergraduate students first have to select the appropriate sources. However, the types of justifications that undergraduates provide for source selection and how these justifications may be impacted by task characteristics have been underexamined. This study explored undergraduates' reported justifications for source selection when responding to questions in a digital academic context. Participants were first asked to answer two questions, one discrete and one open-ended, using an online library of eight sources varying in type and reliability. Subsequently, a guided retrospective interview was used to elicit undergraduates' justifications for source selection. Source selection decisions were coded as epistemic (e.g., concerned with reliability or credibility) or nonepistemic (e.g., concerned with relevance or accessibility). Undergraduate students' justifications were significantly more likely to be nonepistemic than epistemic. Further, the reasons for selection offered differed when participants responded to the discrete versus open-ended question, to a limited extent. Epistemic justifications for source selection were related to a number of outcome measures, while nonepistemic justifications were not. Findings are discussed in

show abstract

Students’ conceptions of knowledge, information, and truth

Cited by 16 publications

References 51 publications

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Epistemic Processing When Adolescents Read Online: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of More and Less Successful Online Readers

Professionalizing Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Misconceptions about Learning and the Brain through Conceptual Change

Undergraduate Students’ Justifications for Source Selection in a Digital Academic Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About