Abstracts - Earli

still in progress, but internal consistencies both of uncertainty measures and of epistemic reasoningmeasures were more or less equal.Content-rich and content-free measures of epistemological understandingMichael Weinstock, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelIn order to assess people’s underlying approach to the nature of knowledge claims,epistemological instruments have generally been designed to be more or less content-free so thatresponses will not be influenced by prior opinions or knowledge. Although this approach isjustified if one wants to assess how people make sense of how people approach unfamiliarknowledge domains or understand how discrepant knowledge claims arise, it may test a smallsubset of everyday knowing. It would seem that most knowledge claims that people would trulyconsider in a normal day concern areas that they would care about or have at least some priorknowledge. This presentation will examine the use of a content-free instrument, explore findingsthat indicate that prior subject or cultural knowledge might influence responses, and presentvariations on the instrument that might better demonstrate how content might influence responsesto assessment items. The implications are twofold: (1) People’s epistemological "competence," asmeasured by content-free measures may not accurately indicate their performance when having toconsider knowledge claims relevant to their own experience, and (2) more attention should be paidto designing assessments that can tap epistemological understandings while not obscuring theinfluence of people’s everyday, domain specific, and cultural knowledge.The use of drawings to assess students’ epistemological beliefsGeraldine Clarebout, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumFien Depaepe, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumJan Elen, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumJeremy Briell, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumVarious instruments have been used to assess epistemological beliefs. In this contribution the useof drawings will be discussed. 216 educational science students were asked to draw ‘knowledge’.A categorisation system for the nature of knowledge resulted from a bottom-up sorting process inwhich three researchers participated. The use of the system by two independent researcherspresents an indication of its viability. This categorisation reveals four groups, namely knowledgeas 1) being part of the person, 2) being part of the external world, 3) being part of both the personand the external world or 4) being a process. The largest group, 37.96%, sees knowledge assomething personal, followed by 35.12% who sees knowledge as personal and external. Only11.11% of the students see knowledge as something purely external; and 12.5% as a process.– 595 –