Monthly 0.2 0.2.

Idea Behind EBAPS THE IDEA BEHIND EBAPS Table of contents 1. We want an instrument optimized for probing the epistemological stances of students taking introductory physics, chemistry, and physical science. Three popular surveys seem like promising candidates. One is Schommer's (1990) Epistemological Questionnaire (EQ), which is designed to apply to all disciplines and a broad range of age groups. The others, aimed specifically at college and advanced high school physics students, are Redish et al.' S (1998) Maryland Physics Expectation survey () and Halloun & Hestenes' (1998) Views About Science Survey () In their respective communities, these surveys have brought unprecedented attention to epistemological issues. However, they contain important flaws.

Schommer's EQ accurately probes students' epistemological stances toward physical science only to the extent that epistemological stances are stable beliefs or traits or theories that don't depend heavily on context, disciplinary or otherwise. As Hammer & Elby (2001) argue, this assumption is problematic. Consequently, we want an instrument that “works” whether or not students' epistemological stances depend on context.

MPEX satisfies this condition in some respects but not in others. Also, by design, it probes not only students' views about knowledge and learning, but also their non-epistemological, course-specific beliefs about how to get high grades.

For these reasons, we designed a new survey, the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physics Science (EBAPS). In section 2, we critique Schommer's EQ and Redish et. These criticisms, which apply to other multiple-choice epistemological assessments currently in the literature, provide guideposts for designing a new instrument. Section 3 discusses how we formulated and validated EBAPS. In section 4, we critique EBAPS, acknowledging the ways in which it falls prey to some of our criticisms of other instruments. In this section, we critically examine Schommer's Epistemological Questionnaire (EQ) and Redish et al.' S Maryland Physics Expectation survey (MPEX).

We single them out for criticism solely because they are well-known in their respective communities and because our arguments apply equally well to other multiple-choice epistemological instruments. EQ's strength—and in our view, its weakness—is the generality of its items, such as • Nothing is certain, but death and taxes. • I don't like movies that don't have endings. (Other questions focus more specifically on school and learning, but without specifying a disciplinary or other rich context.) This generality might be problematic, for the following reason. As science educators and teachers, we want to know the extent to which students see scientific knowledge as certain versus tentative and evolving, among other issues. However, a student's reaction to the “death and taxes” item gives us accurate insight into her view of scientific knowledge only if students have stable beliefs or theories about certainty—beliefs that apply just as well to science as they do to everyday events or whatever else the student has in her head when she responds to the item.

Hammer & Elby (2001) argue that this assumption is problematic. This assumption is plausible. For instance, as Hofer shows, students thinking about chemistry view knowledge as more certain than students thinking about psychology do. Even within a specific discipline, people's view of certainty might fluctuate. For instance, we are quite certain that the Earth is round (as opposed to flat), but quite uncertain about whether life exists on Mars. Hammer & Elby show that other contextual factors might also matter.

Similar criticisms apply to the movie item. A student's response gives us precise insight into her view of scientific knowledge only if the student possesses a general tolerance or intolerance for uncertainty that permeates her view of knowledge in various disciplines. In other words, the movie item assumes that epistemological stances are traits; But epistemological stances, like many personality characteristics, might be less monolithic.

For instance, we know a calm person who always becomes agitated and angry when she spends time with a certain annoying relative. Similarly, someone who dislikes ambiguity while relaxing at the movies on Saturday night might revel in uncertainty (after a good sleep) when debating a complex policy issue. In summary, the extent to which Schommer's EQ accurately probes students' epistemological stances toward physical science depends on the extent to which epistemological stances are stable, context-independent beliefs or traits. We would prefer an epistemological instrument that works reasonably well even if students' epistemological stances turn out to incorporate disciplinary and other contextual dependence. MPEX, like EQ, asks subjects to rate their agreement/disagreement with brief statements. But the statements refer specifically to physics, and in many cases, to introductory physics courses.