Abstracts - Earli

eliefs. In this symposium the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative approaches arediscussed.CAEB: Possibilities and limits of a semantic differential to measure epistemological beliefsElmar Stahl, University of Education, GermanyRainer Bromme, University of Münster, GermanyWe present an overview of nine studies on different applications of CAEB, a semantic differentialto measure epistemological beliefs. The aim of the overview is to examine the quality of theinstrument in different empirical contexts. CAEB (connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs)is a semantic differential to examine students’ associative-evaluative beliefs about the nature ofknowledge in different domains. In CAEB students read an initial sentence like "knowledge inbotanic can be described as:" and are asked to judge their beliefs about knowledge (thus in thiscase about botanic) on 24 pairs of adjectives (like: dynamic – static; structured – unstructured).CAEB allows to establish judgement-profiles on item level as well as to calculate factor scores ofthe participants. Criteria to judge the quality of CAEB were: a) replication of the factor structure,b) ability to measure differences in students’ beliefs about different academic domains, c) relationsto other variables in the learning process. We were able to replicate a stable two factor solutionwith the dimensions texture (beliefs about structure and accuracy of knowledge) and variability(beliefs about stability and dynamic of knowledge) in all studies. CAEB proved to be able tomeasure differences of students’ epistemological beliefs for different academic domains in threestudies. Further on, we found interactions between students’ epistemological beliefs measuredwith CAEB and different variables of learning processes within six studies. Up to now we canconclude that our studies with CAEB are promising. These results will be discussed in relation tothe possibilities and limits of CAEB to measure epistemological beliefs.Epistemic reasoning versus epistemic beliefs: on the distinction between procedural anddeclarative levels of personal epistemologyCornelis de Brabander, Leiden University, NetherlandsJeroen Rozendaal, University of Leiden, NetherlandsWe proposed a distinction between a procedural and a declarative level of personal epistemology,designated as epistemic reasoning respectively epistemic beliefs. We hypothesized that epistemicbeliefs are developed later than epistemic reasoning and tested this hypothesis in two studies withthe assumption that internal consistency within and relations between measures of epistemicreasoning and measures of epistemic beliefs are higher depending of the developmental level ofthe underlying constructs. Epistemic reasoning was measured using bipolar scales containingexplicit contrasting labels. Respondents judged two domains: knowledge on nature and knowledgeon man and society. In each domain one scale was established: uncertainty of knowledge withineach domain. Epistemic reasoning was measured using knowledge dilemmas and asking therespondent to indicate level of agreement with statements that represent different ways ofepistemic reasoning. Three scales were derived: absolutism, multiplism, and evaluativism. In thefirst study 209 respondents participated. Internal consistency of uncertainty of knowledge scalesappeared to increase with five consecutive grade levels, starting with secondary third grade.Internal consistencies of absolutism were more equal, however an increase was detectable in theconsistency of multiplism and evaluativism. Patterns of correlations between and among measuresof epistemic reasoning and epistemic beliefs were variable and difficult to interpret. In the secondstudy the number of grade levels was decreased to three (secondary fourth, sixth, and bachelorstudents) in favor of the number of respondents. In total 330 respondents participated. Analysis is– 594 –