Epistemic Stance

Definition

Epistemic stance refers to how students position themselves in relation to knowledge construction when working with AI. It encompasses their beliefs about:

Who has authority to create and validate knowledge (human, AI, or collaboration)
What counts as legitimate knowledge
How knowledge should be constructed and verified
Where responsibility lies for truth claims

Epistemic stance reveals whether students see themselves as knowledge consumers (passive) or knowledge constructors (active).

Theoretical Foundation

This concept draws from:

Epistemology - Theories of knowledge and knowing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997)
Epistemic cognition - How people understand the nature and justification of knowledge (Greene et al., 2016)
New Literacies - Knowledge construction in digital environments (Leu et al., 2013)
Critical AI literacy - Questioning AI as authoritative knowledge source (Long & Magerko, 2020)

Dimensions of Epistemic Stance in AI-Literacy

1. Authority and Trust

Who is positioned as the knower?

Stance	Description	Evidence
AI-Authoritative	AI positioned as expert/oracle	"The AI said..." (uncritical acceptance)
Self-Authoritative	Student as primary knowledge constructor	"I used AI to help me think..."
Co-Constructed	Knowledge emerges from collaboration	"AI suggested X, but I revised to Y because..."

2. Knowledge Validation

How is knowledge verified?

Stance	Description	Evidence
Outsourced Validation	AI output accepted without verification	No fact-checking, source verification
Human Validation	Student cross-checks against sources	"I verified the AI's claim against..."
Collaborative Validation	Iterative checking with AI and sources	Using AI to check AI, plus human judgment

3. Responsibility for Truth

Who is accountable for accuracy?

Stance	Description	Evidence
AI-Responsible	AI blamed for errors	"The AI got it wrong"
Self-Responsible	Student owns final product	"I should have caught that error"
Shared-Responsible	Acknowledges joint accountability	"I didn't verify the AI's output carefully enough"

Epistemic Stance Continuum

Passive Consumption ←――――――――――――――――――――――――――→ Active Construction
(AI as Authority)                               (Human as Authority)
        |                    |                    |
   Low Agency          Co-Construction      High Agency
   Low Critical         Collaborative        High Critical
    Thinking             Thinking             Thinking

Evidence of Epistemic Stance in Framework Components

In Co-Constructing AI Boundaries Framework Component - Outputs

Critical evaluation of AI responses
Recognition of hallucinations, bias
Questioning AI's "knowledge"

In Co-Constructing AI Boundaries Framework Component - Integration

Modification signals self as knowledge authority
Rejection demonstrates critical epistemic stance
Verbatim copy suggests AI-authoritative stance

In Co-Constructing AI Boundaries Framework Component - Reflection

Explicit statements about knowledge authority
Metacognitive awareness of who is "thinking"
Articulation of responsibility for truth claims

Relationship to Other Concepts

Agency - Epistemic stance informs how students exercise agency
Boundary-work - Boundaries reflect epistemic beliefs about authority

Key Questions for Analyzing Epistemic Stance

Does the student position themselves as knowledge creator or knowledge consumer?
Do they treat AI outputs as truth claims requiring verification or as authoritative?
Do they claim ownership of ideas generated through AI collaboration?
How do they talk about responsibility for accuracy and quality?
Do they demonstrate awareness of AI limitations and biases?

Examples from Data

High Epistemic Agency

"I asked the AI to summarize the readings, but I noticed it
missed the critical perspective from hooks (1994), so I
prompted it to reconsider. Even then, I rewrote the analysis
in my own voice because the AI's framing was too neutral."

(Student positions self as authority, validates AI, transforms output)

Low Epistemic Agency

"Here's what the AI said about the topic."
[Pastes AI output verbatim]

(AI positioned as authority, no validation, no transformation)

Pedagogical Implications

To foster critical epistemic stance:

Explicit discussion of knowledge authority with AI
Practice identifying AI errors and biases
Structured reflection on "who is thinking"
Emphasis on human responsibility for final claims
Modeling of verification and transformation practices