大學生知識認識信念、知識情緒與學習投入的中介效果考驗

Chin-Tang Tu

doi:10.6251/BEP.202212_54(2).0010

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2024/01/01~2024/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P483 - 507

社会科学 > 心理学
社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.6251/BEP

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

大学生知识认识信念、知识情绪与学习投入的中介效果考验

College students' Epistemic Cognition, Epistemic Emotion, and Student Engagement: A Mediation Analysis

凃金堂(Chin-Tang Tu)

教育心理学报； 54 卷 2 期 (2022 / 12 / 01) ， P483 - 507

英文 DOI： 10.6251/BEP.202212_54(2).0010

中介效果；知识认识信念；知识情绪；学习投入； mediation analysis ； epistemic cognition ； epistemic emotion ； student engagement

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (67) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

College student engagement has been a major focus of research. College student engagement can influence learning effectiveness and future societal development. Kuh (2003) determined that engagement is essential for a college student; the more college students study in their field, the more they understand the subject area. Moreover, students perform better when receiving feedback from faculty. Engagement can improve problem solving, cooperation with diverse cohorts, and tolerance of different perspectives. Epistemic cognition refers to how individuals form opinions on the essence, source, and verification of knowledge. Since the study of Perry (1970) on the ethical and intellectual development of students at Harvard, epistemic cognition of college students has been a major field of research. Different from Perry's qualitative interview method, Schommer (1990) used a quantitative questionnaire survey method to explore the influence of personal "epistemological beliefs" on reading comprehension. The results revealed that epistemological beliefs are closely related to reading comprehension. College life is full of emotions, including joy, hope, pride, anger, fear, and boredom (Pekrun, 2019). Epistemic emotions are felt when processing knowledge and are a key element of the learning process. Studies have indicated that the epistemic cognition of college students can directly influence engagement (DeBacker & Crowson, 2006; Heiskanen & Lonka, 2012; Ravindran et al., 2005). When college students believe that they can construct knowledge, student engagement is promoted. Furthermore, the epistemic cognition of college students influences their engagement indirectly through epistemic emotion (Bahcivan, 2019; Muis et al., 2015; Trevors et al., 2017). When college students believe that they can construct knowledge, they come to possess positive epistemic cognition that enhances their engagement (Denovan et al., 2020; Q. Zhang & J. Zhang, 2013). On the basis of the literature review, this study proposed the following five hypotheses: H_1: The epistemic cognition of college students has a significant impact on their engagement. H_2: The epistemic cognition of college students has a significant influence on their positive epistemic emotions. H_3: The epistemic cognition of college students has a significant influence on their negative epistemic emotions. H_4: The epistemic cognition of college students has an intermediary effect through their positive epistemic emotions. H_5: The epistemic cognition of college students has an intermediary effect through their negative epistemic emotions. This study included a pretest in which 314 valid questionnaires were collected. Thereafter, the test was conducted, and 514 valid questionnaires were collected. Four research instruments were used in this study: The Epistemic Cognition Scale, Positive Epistemic Emotion Scale, Negative Epistemic Emotion Scale, and Student Engagement Scale. The items of each of the four scales were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. All the items were reviewed by eight university professors. Before conducting the pretest, we revised the questions on the basis of the advice of the professors. All four research instruments demonstrated good content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using all four scales to test the construct validity, and the reliability of each scale was tested using Cronbach's α coefficients. The α coefficients obtained for the four subscales of the Epistemic Cognition Scale were between .61 and .85. The α coefficients for the two subscales of the Positive Epistemic Emotion Scale were between .70 and .84. The α coefficients for three subscales of the Negative Epistemic Emotion Scale were between .65 and .84, and those obtained for the three subscales of the Student Engagement Scale were between .68 and .78. Thus, the four scales demonstrated good reliability and validity. AMOS 21.0 statistical software was used to test the mediating effect model and the structural equation model. The results revealed that H_1 was supported, and the standardized regression coefficient was .35 (p < 0.001); H_2 was supported, and the standardized regression coefficient was .26 (p < 0.001); H_3 was supported, and the standardized regression coefficient was -.11 (p < 0.05); and H_4 was supported, and the indirect effect was .40; H_5, however, was not supported. The results of this study revealed that the epistemic cognition of college students has a direct effect on their positive epistemic emotion. Thus, when college students have a diverse range of knowledge and they believe that they can construct their own knowledge, they develop more positive epistemic emotions and fewer negative epistemic emotions. Additionally, their engagement increases. During the learning process of college students, the more positive epistemic emotions students develop, the more learning activities they may engage in. According to the literature, the indirect effect of epistemic cognition, epistemic emotion, and student engagement is supported by empirical data. Epistemic cognition interacts with positive epistemic emotion and indirectly influences student engagement. If the epistemic cognition of college students has multiple constructs, students may develop positive epistemic emotions that improve engagement. Consequently, positive epistemic emotions play a mediator between epistemic cognition and student engagement. However, the indirect effects of epistemic cognition, negative epistemic emotion, and student engagement were not supported. Therefore, epistemic cognition does not interact with negative epistemic emotions, and student engagement was not directly influenced. Because epistemic cognition profoundly affects the engagement of college students, we suggest that higher education administrative bodies pay attention to the epistemic cognition of students. Additionally, universities can provide students with relevant resources for developing more diverse opinions among students. Future research can further investigate the mediating effects of epistemic cognition, epistemic emotion, and student engagement, which were inconclusive in the present study.

参考文献 ( 67 ) 〈TOP〉

林小慧, H.-H.,郭哲宇, C.-Y.,吴心楷, H.-K.(2021)。学生学习投入、好奇心、教师集体层级变项与科学探究能力的关系：跨层级调节式中介效果之探讨。教育科学研究期刊，66(2)，75-110。
连结：
张钿富, D.-F.(2012)。大学生学习投入理论与评量实务之探讨。高教评监，S，41-62。
连结：
陈柏霖, P.-L.,洪兆祥, C.-H.,余民宁, M.-N.(2019)。成年早期与中期样貌：全心学习、情绪创造、品味能力及圆满人生之模型建构和其差异比较。教育科学研究期刊，64(4)，207-239。
连结：
陈慧娟, H.-J.,简洧晴, W.-C.(2020)。大学生选课後悔与动机干扰研究：检验後悔因应策略的中介效果与社会支持的调节效果。教育科学研究期刊，65(2)，277-312。
连结：
黄筠婷, Y.-T.,程炳林, B.-L.(2021)。国中生学业情绪、情境兴趣及学习涉入的交互关系。教育心理学报，52，571-593。
连结：

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址