January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

depending on one’s ability to support them with warrants” (Schraw, 2001, p. 456). There is also unanimous
agreement that regardless of the number of epistemological beliefs there are fundamentally two different types
corresponding to “view of knowledge” and “justification of beliefs” (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).
ABSOLUTIST THINKING
Table 1. Epistemological beliefs rubric
View of knowledge:
Knowledge is assumed to be either right or wrong. If it is not absolutely certain, it is only temporarily uncertain and
will soon be determined. A person can know with certainty through three sources: (a) direct observation; (b) what
“feels right;” and (c) authorities (experts, teachers, parents).
Concept of justification:
Beliefs need no justification or they are justified through an authority figure such as a teacher or a parent. Most
questions are assumed to have a right answer so there is little or no conflict in making decisions about disputed
issues.
RELATIVIST THINKING
View of knowledge:
Knowledge is uncertain (there is no right or wrong) and idiosyncratic to the individual. Knowledge is seen as
subjective and contextual.
Concept of justification:
Beliefs are justified by giving reasons and evidence idiosyncratic to the individual. Beliefs are filtered through a
person’s experiences and criteria for judgment.
REFLECTIVE THINKING
View of knowledge:
Knowledge is constructed by comparing evidence and opinion on different sides of an issue. Knowledge is the
outcome of the process of reasonable inquiry leading to a well-informed understanding.
Concept of justification:
Beliefs are justified by comparing evidence and opinion from different perspectives. Conclusions are defended as
representing the most complete, plausible understanding of an issue on the basis of the available evidence.
Thus, we collapsed the three pre-reflective sub-stages into one stage, that of absolutist thinking, the two quasireflective
sub-stages into another stage, namely, relativist thinking, and the last two sub-stages into a third stage, that
of reflective thinking.
In scoring the responses on the EBQ, two raters were trained using the same procedures that we established in a
previous study about the development of epistemological beliefs (Valanides & Angeli, 2005). Succinctly, the two
trained raters independently scored the answers to the four questions of the EBQ. Each of the three stages of the
rubric consisted of two subsections: (1) view of knowledge, and (2) justification of beliefs. Responses to each one of
the four questions were rated by referring to one of the subsections of each stage. For example, the responses to
questions 2 and 5 were rated based on their fit with the section on view of knowledge of each stage, whereas the
responses to questions 3 and 4 were rated based on their fit with the section on justification of beliefs of each stage.
Each question of the EBQ was analyzed and scored using a scale from 1 to 3. These numbers corresponded to the
three stages of the simplified three-stage model of epistemological beliefs shown in Table 1. A score of 1, 2, and 3
indicated performance at the level of absolutist thinking, the level of relativist thinking, and the level of reflective
thinking, respectively. Scores were then summarized into a four-digit code indicating the respective scores from each
of the four questions. For example, 1121 indicated performance at the level of absolutist thinking for questions 2, 3,
and 5, and at the relativist thinking for question 4. As King and Kitchener (1994) argue, this scoring procedure is
5