It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Science identity is widely regarded as a key predictor of students’ persistence in STEM fields, while the brain drain in STEM fields is an urgent issue for countries to address. Based on previous studies, it is logical to suggest that epistemological beliefs about science and reflective thinking contribute to the development of science identity. However, few empirical studies have focused on the relationship between these three variables. Therefore, using structural equation modeling, the present study constructed a model to explore the relationship between epistemological beliefs, reflective thinking, three science identity shaping constructs (interest, competence/performance beliefs, external recognition), and the holistic impression on science identity (a single indicator).
Results
The results indicated that the epistemological beliefs were positively correlated with interest and reflective thinking, as well as the direct effects of reflective thinking on interest or competence/performance beliefs were significant. In terms of indirect effect, interest plays a mediating role in the relationship between epistemological beliefs and holistic impression on science identity, while the mediation effect of competence/performance beliefs was not significant. Epistemological beliefs contributed to the holistic impression on science identity via reflective thinking, competence/performance beliefs, and interest or external recognition.
Conclusion
The results of this study reveal that epistemological beliefs and reflective thinking have a direct effect on science identity. In addition, epistemological beliefs have an indirect effect on scientific identity through reflective thinking. These provide insights for educators to figure out how to develop students’ science identity by enhancing their epistemological beliefs and reflective thinking. Practical educational implications are also further discussed in the present study.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Shaanxi Normal University, MOE Key Laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology, Xi’an, China (GRID:grid.412498.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1759 8395)
2 Shaanxi Normal University, MOE Key Laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology, Xi’an, China (GRID:grid.412498.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1759 8395); Shaanxi Normal University, School of Education, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China (GRID:grid.412498.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1759 8395)
3 Shaanxi Normal University, MOE Key Laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology, Xi’an, China (GRID:grid.412498.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1759 8395); Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment Toward Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University, Shaanxi Normal University Branch, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.20513.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 1789 9964)