A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

Similar factor structures were produced across disciplines. The results that the science-focused
version reported less mature beliefs than those of the psychology-focused version seem to
support domain specificity to some extent.
Measurement Issues
Empirical research generally supports the positive relationship between sophisticated
epistemological beliefs and a number of desired learning outcomes. For instance, researchers
have found correlations between sophisticated epistemological beliefs and two-sided reasoning
about controversial social issues (Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Mateos et al., 2011; Schommer-
Aikins & Hutter, 2002), positive changes in scientific conception (Sinatra, Southerland,
McConaughy & Demastes, 2003), and academic achievement (Rodríguez & Cano, 2006).
Self-report instruments measuring multiple epistemological beliefs are more widely used in
empirical studies for their amenability to relatively more complex statistical analyses (Schraw,
2012), as compared to those measuring the development of epistemological understanding. In
particular, the popularity of the EBI has been growing in the past years because of its domain
generic nature and its advantage of measuring all five facets of the original Schommer’s model
using only half of the EQ’s items. Although measurement problems have been persistent in
empirical epistemological research, multi-facet questionnaires still contribute to the field
because of their strength for allowing an otherwise fuzzy and complex construct to be broken
down into agreeable facets. Examination of interrelationships among these facets and their
unique and combined variances in predicting teaching and learning variables is also made
possible. For instance, Chan and colleagues (2011) found that even after controlling for
cognitive ability, individuals who hold the belief that knowledge is certain and absolute
performed more poorly in two-sided thinking tasks than those who recognized that knowledge
is changeable. This finding supported the unique contribution of epistemological beliefs to
reasoning beyond a person’s overall intellectual capacity.
Another issue to take note of is that instruments using domain generic beliefs might not be
adequate in capturing epistemic attitudes that are specific to a particular context or discipline.
Likewise, those measuring domain specific beliefs suffer from limited generalization of findings.
Given the lack of a unified conceptualization of personal epistemology and psychometric
inconsistencies in factor structure across studies with different instruments, researchers should
take caution with result interpretation.
Conclusion
In recent years, alternate theories have been put forth that are worth taking note of for future
studies. In particular, the field has called for more consideration when interpreting what
constitutes sophisticated and naïve believers using generic measurements of beliefs about
knowledge. For instance, researchers such as Elby and Hammer (2001) have proposed the
epistemological resources theory that challenged the simple either-or classification of a
learner’s belief as naïve or sophisticated. They hold that the correct sophisticated
understanding of the discipline science as changing and tentative might not be productive when
129