Assessing students’ epistemic beliefs related to professional and school science

Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode= sed20 In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion ISSN: (P in ) (Online) Jou nal homepage: h ps://www. and online.com/loi/ sed20 Assessing s uden s’ epis emic belie s ela ed o p o essional and school science F auke Voi le, Benedik Heuckmann, Nele Kampa & Ke s in K eme To ci e his a icle: F auke Voi le, Benedik Heuckmann, Nele Kampa & Ke s in K eme (2022) Assessing s uden s’ epis emic belie s ela ed o p o essional and school science, In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion, 44:6, 1000-1020, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2022.2059821 To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2022.2059821 © 2022 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup View supplemen a y ma e ial Published online: 12 Ap 2022. Submi you a icle o his jou nal A icle iews: 1879 View ela ed a icles View C ossma k da a Assessing s uden s’epis emic belie s ela ed o p o essional and school science F auke Voi le a,b , Benedik Heuckmann a,c , Nele Kampa d and Ke s in K eme a,b,e a Ins i u e o Science Educa ion, Leibniz Uni e si y Hanno e , Hanno e , Ge many; b Depa men o Biology Educa ion, Leibniz Ins i u e o Science and Ma hema ics Educa ion (IPN) a he Uni e si y o Kiel, Kiel, Ge many; c Cen e o Biology Educa ion, Uni e si y o Müns e , Müns e , Ge many; d Depa men o Resea ch and De elopmen in Teache Educa ion, Uni e si y College o Teache Educa ion Ty ol, Innsb uck, Aus ia; e Ins i u e o Biology Educa ion, Jus us Liebig Uni e si y, Giessen, Ge many ABSTRACT The school con ex , like o he influences, affec s he de elopmen o s uden s’epis emic belie s (EBs), wi h heo e ical concep ualiza ions sugges ing a dis inc ion be ween EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. Howe e , empi ical s udies a ely add ess his dis inc ion, and ins umen s sepa a ely assessing hese EBs a e no a ailable. We add ess his esea ch gap by p o iding a new ques ionnai e ha is based on he es ablished ins umen by Conley e al. (2004) and which uses pai s o analogous i ems e e ing o he con ex s o p o essional and school science. We succeeded in simul aneously assessing s uden s’EBs wi h eliable scales ha allow o di ec compa isons. C oss-sec ional da a is epo ed om a coho s udy (N= 405) in g ades 6 (n= 132), 8 (n= 167) and 10 (n= 106) ha showed highe ag eemen wi h he scales ela ed o p o essional science as well as highe ag eemen in highe g ade le els. We u he discuss me hodological aspec s o scale- o ma ion, and highligh p omising implemen a ions o ou ques ionnai e ha u u e esea ch could benefi om. ARTICLE HISTORY Recei ed 30 Janua y 2021 Accep ed 27 Ma ch 2022 KEYWORDS Assessmen ; epis emology; seconda y/high school In oduc ion Epis emic belie s (EBs) ha e epea edly been linked o s uden s’lea ning and academic achie emen (Ho e , 2016; Lee e al., 2016; Lin & Tsai, 2017) and con inue o be a mean- ing ul esea ch in e es in in e na ional science educa ion (Lee e al. 2021). The inclusion o EBs in la ge-scale assessmen s, such as he P og amme o In e na ional S uden Assessmen (PISA) (OECD, 2019) has helped o iden i y EBs as an impo an p edic o o science lea ning (Ka akolidis e al., 2019; She e al., 2019). Like iews abou he na u e © 2022 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i a i es License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which pe mi s non-comme cial e-use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed, and is no al e ed, ans o med, o buil upon in any way. CONTACT F auke Voi le [email p o ec ed] Ins i u e o Science Educa ion, Leibniz Uni e si y Hanno e , Hanno e , Ge many; Depa men o Biology Educa ion, Leibniz Ins i u e o Science and Ma hema ics Educa ion (IPN) a he Uni e si y o Kiel, Kiel, Ge many Supplemen al da a o his a icle can be accessed a h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2022.2059821 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2022, VOL. 44, NO. 6, 1000–1020 h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2022.2059821 o science (Khish e & Lede man, 2007), EBs ha e p o en o be sensi i e o science ins uc ion (Be nhol e al., 2021; Conley e al., 2004; Schie e e al., 2020) and diffe be ween g ade le els, wi h olde s uden s holding belie s ha a e less absolu e (K eme & Maye , 2013). Fu he mo e, in addi ion o hei discipline- and domain-specific na u e (Ho e , 2000; Muis e al., 2006), EBs a e also si ua ed and con ex ualised (Mason, 2016). An impo an bu o en unde a ed aspec o EB esea ch is conce ned wi h dependen- cies be ween he specific con ex o school science and s uden s’EBs abou science. Resea che s ha e a gued ha s uden s may de elop ‘pa allel ways o knowing’(Edmond- son & No ak, 1993, p. 550), wi h s uden s’ iews abou p o essional and school science mos ly emaining sepa a e om each o he . Howe e , while s uden s’pe cep ions o p o- essional and school science a e likely o diffe , his explici dis inc ion emains com- monly unacknowledged in he analyses o empi ical s udies (Conley e al., 2004; Solomon e al., 1996; Villanue a e al., 2019) and ques ionnai es sepa a ely assessing he wo con ex s a e no a ailable. In ou pape , we aim o (a) de elop an ins umen ha allows o simul aneous assess- men o s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science and (b) in es iga e hese EBs o s uden s a diffe en g ade le els. Ou newly-de eloped Like -scale ques ionnai e is based on he mos equen ly used ins umen o assessing s uden s’EBs abou science by Conley e al. (2004), which ollows he widely-ag eed ou -dimensional s uc u e o EBs (Ho e , 2000). In ou adap ion, pai s o analogous i ems simul aneously assess s u- den s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. We epo a compa ison o hese EBs o s uden s om g ades 6, 8 and 10. Ou s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e by sys- ema ically desc ibing s uden s’EBs abou bo h p o essional and school science, a he han ocusing on only one con ex , and by p o iding esea che s wi h a ques ionnai e ha allows o simul aneous elici a ion and di ec compa ison o hese EBs. Theo e ical backg ound The ole o epis emic belie s in science educa ion The Handbook o Epis emic Cogni ion (G eene e al., 2016) imp essi ely summa ises he g ea a ie y and amifica ion o ‘epis emic “some hing” e ms’(p. 506, ff.) cu en ly used in he li e a u e. No wi hs anding he di e si y o concep ualiza ions and in icacies, we e e o EBs as a mul idimensional cons uc ep esen ing a se o pe sonal heo ies and belie s ha one holds abou he na u e o knowledge and he p ocess o knowing (Ho e & Pin ich, 1997). In his con ex , we use he e m epis emic belie s (e.g. Ka akolidis e al., 2019; Lin & Tsai, 2017; Muis e al., 2006) ins ead o epis emological belie s (e.g. Conley e al., 2004; Ho e & Pin ich, 1997; Schomme e al., 1992) in o de o emphasise he ocus on knowledge a he han he heo y o knowledge (Ki chene , 2002). Wi h ega d o science educa ion, EBs ha e an impo an ole o science lea ning, bo h as a p e equisi e o lea ning and as a lea ning goal (B omme e al., 2010; Kampa e al., 2016). Fo ins ance, s uden s’EBs a e ela ed o hei use o lea ning s a egies (Lee e al., 2016; Schomme e al., 1992; U hahne & Hop , 2004), hei cons uc ion o a gumen s and pe o mance in scien ific easoning (Bay elman e al., 2020; Yang e al., 2019) and hei academic achie emen (Schomme e al., 1992; S a hopoulou & INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1001 Vosniadou, 2007). In line wi h he iew o EBs as lea ning goals and ela ed esea ch on na u e o science (e.g. Lede man e al., 2002), he iew o knowledge, o example, as en- a i e, cons uc ed and subjec i e is commonly conside ed sophis ica ed in EB assess- men (Conley e al., 2004; Lin & Tsai, 2017; Neh ing, 2020). Howe e , his iew o sophis ica ion aligned wi h he in e p e a ion o Like -scales has been c i icised as oo simplis ic (Elby e al., 2016; Ho e , 2016). Rega ding he school science con ex and i s pa icula demands, conside a ion o EBs in e ms o p oduc i i y is sugges ed (Elby e al., 2016). Sepa a ing p o essional and school science in assessmen o epis emic belie s Resea che s ha e epea edly a gued ha he school con ex con ibu es o he de elop- men and change o EBs (Hogan, 2000; Muis e al., 2006; Sando al, 2005). Theo e ical suppo o he impac o school science expe iences on EBs is p o ided by Hogan (2000) and Sando al (2005). The au ho s p opose o dis inguish ‘dis al and p oximal knowledge o he na u e o science’(Hogan, 2000, p. 52) and s uden s’‘ o mal epis em- ologies’as well as ‘p ac ical epis emologies’(Sando al, 2005, p. 635). Hogan (2000) bases he dis inc ion on he pe cei ed dis ance o pe sonal expe iences. Sando al (2005) ocuses on he con ex in which science is conduc ed, as well as on s uden s’ac i e pa in doing science. Fu he suppo o he impac o school science expe iences on EBs comes om he Theo ies o In eg a ed Domains in Epis emology (TIDE) amewo k (Muis e al., 2006). The amewo k illus a es he impac o diffe en con ex s, including he school o academic con ex , in shaping and changing EBs. To empi ically es he a- mewo k, Muis e al. (2016) analysed s uden s’ a ionales o hei esponses o an EB ques ionnai e. They ound ha school expe iences shaped and influenced s uden s’ explana ions when e e ing o p o essional disciplines. Ano he s udy explo ed s uden s’ belie s abou which sou ces inspi ed hemsel es o scien is s o do science expe imen s (Elde , 2002). The au ho ound ha s uden s mo e o en epo ed scien is s as ac i ely cons uc ing knowledge. E en hough hese s udies show he impo ance o dis inguish- ing and sys ema ically assessing s uden s’EBs in p o essional and school science, s udies explici ly compa ing hese wo con ex s a e a e. In ou pape , we build on he concep ualiza ions by Hogan (2000) and Sando al (2005) in e ms o dis inguishing be ween wo con ex s bu es ic he scope o he con- side ed cons uc s o he s udy o EBs. The e o e, we use he e ms ‘EBs ela ed o p o- essional science’and ‘EBs ela ed o school science’in o de o emphasise he espec i e con ex s o conduc ing science. Ne e heless, ou no ion o EBs ela ed o p o essional science is e y simila o Hogan’s(2000) no ion o dis al knowledge and Sando al’s (2005) no ion o o mal epis emologies. Howe e , ou no ion o EBs ela ed o school science en ails an impo an diffe ence. This diffe ence becomes e iden in he s udy con- duc ed by Bu gin and Sadle (2013), who in es iga ed he ela ion be ween s uden s’ p ac ical and o mal epis emologies. Du ing he highly au hen ic expe ience o comple - ing an in e nship in a labo a o y, s uden s acqui ed fi s -hand expe ience o p o essional science. The s udy ound ha s uden s’p ac ical and o mal epis emologies we e pa ially consis en . Howe e , while he expe iences acqui ed du ing he in e nship a e conside ed as pa o s uden s’p ac ical epis emologies (o p oximal knowledge), we would no assume hem o be pa o s uden s’EBs ela ed o school science. In line wi h Muis 1002 F. VOITLE ET AL. e al. (2006) and Sando al (2016), we limi ou defini ion o school science o science con- duc ed in he educa ional con ex o ins i u ionalised, o mal science educa ion in K12. Building on he use o he e m by Sando al (2005), we define p o essional science as science conduc ed by p o essional esea che s in he con ex o o example, uni e si ies o p i a e companies. In his ega d, we unde s and and use he e m ‘science’as an umb ella e m e e ing o a ious o ms o science, including o example science con- duc ed a school (‘school science’) o in a p o essional se ing (‘p o essional science’). In pa icula , ins ead o ‘science’ he e m ‘p o essional science’is used o s ess i s diffe - ence om he school subjec and emphasise i s pe o mance by scien is s. The assessmen o epis emic belie s abou science Se e al ins umen s assess s uden s’EBs abou science (Elby e al., 2016; Lee e al., 2021; Sando al, 2016), wi h sel - epo ed Like -scale ques ionnai es being commonly used o he assessmen o mul idimensional EBs (Mason, 2016). Despi e he limi a ions o Like - scales, hey acili a e he use o sophis ica ed in e en ial s a is ics and ep esen a i e la ge-scale assessmen s o in es iga e ela ionships be ween EBs and s uden s’achie e- men , as well as o he cons uc s (Ho e , 2016; Mason, 2016). Among he mos ci ed ins umen s e e ing o he con ex o p o essional science (see Table 1) a e he ones by Conley e al. (2004), S a hopoulou and Vosniadou (2007), and Tsai and Liu (2005). These ins umen s diffe mainly in e ms o he numbe o i ems, he examined EB dimensions, and hei applica ion o diffe en s udy popula ions. The 26-i em ins umen by Conley e al. (2004) is he mos es ablished. I has equen ly been implemen ed in a ious age g oups (g ade 5 and upwa ds) o assess EBs in he dimensions o Sou ce, Ce - ain y, De elopmen , and Jus ifica ion o knowledge. Table 1. Mos equen ly ci ed pape s ha include ins umen s on s uden s’EBs abou (p o essional) science. Au ho s (Yea ) & (Web o Science Ci a ions) Desc ip ion Conley e al. (2004) (240 ci a ions) .26 i ems .5-poin Like -scale .4 dimensions: sou ce, ce ain y, de elopmen , and jus ifica ion .ini ially adminis e ed o fi h-g ade s uden s .used in a ious age g oups . a ious ansla ions and adap ions a ailable. S a hopoulou and Vosniadou (2007) (74 ci a ions) .G eek Epis emological Belie s E alua ion Ins umen o Physics (GEBEP) .40 s a emen i ems and 9 deba e i ems .4 dimensions: s uc u e, s abili y, sou ce, and jus ifica ion . alida ed wi h en h-g ade s uden s. Tsai and Liu (2005) (68 ci a ions) .19 i ems .5-poin Like -scale .5 dimensions: ole o social nego ia ion, in en ed and c ea i e na u e o science, heo y-laden explo a ion, cul u al impac s, and changing and en a i e ea u e o science knowledge . alida ed o high school s uden s (and hei eache s) .25 i em e sion a ailable o college s uden s (Liu & Tsai, 2008). No e. Ci a ions las upda ed:03/23/2022. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1003 Resea ch on EBs ela ed o school science, howe e , is sca ce, wi h mainly quali a i e da a a ailable, such as s uden s’jou nals and labo a o y w i e-ups (e.g. Schalk, 2012), in e iews (e.g. Bu gin & Sadle , 2013;Wu&Wu,2011) and ideo aped lessons (e.g. Hamza & Wickman, 2013;Wu&Wu,2011). To he bes o ou knowledge, he P ac ical Epis emology in Science Su ey (PESS) by Villanue a e al. (2019) is he fi s and only ques ionnai e explici ly assessing EBs ela ed o school science in la ge sample sizes. Simila o ins umen s a ailable o p o essional science, he PESS is a sel - epo ool which consis s o 26 Like -scale i ems in he dimensions o imme si e and non-imme - si e inqui y, and which measu es s uden s’ iews abou hei pa icipa ion in school science. The i ems display high specifici y and exclusi eness o he school-science con ex . Resea ch ques ions Despi e effo s o accoun o he diffe ences be ween he school-science and p o- essional-science con ex s in heo e ical concep ualiza ions (Hogan, 2000; Sando al, 2005), empi ical s udies and ins umen s sys ema ically assessing his diffe ence a e a e. One he one hand, quali a i e me hods such as in e iews o ideo aped lessons a e no designed o compa ing s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science ac oss g ade le els wi hin la ge samples (e.g. Bu gin & Sadle , 2013;Wu& Wu, 2011). On he o he hand, exis ing ins umen s wi h closed-ended i ems ha allow o quan i a i e assessmen o la ge samples (e.g. Conley e al., 2004; S a hopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007; Tsai & Liu, 2005; Villanue a e al., 2019) do no add ess diffe ences be ween s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science, and p esume diffe en dimensionali ies o EBs (Conley e al., 2004; Villanue a e al., 2019). The e o e, compa i- sons based on hese ques ionnai es would be se iously impai ed. In summa y, science educa ion esea ch specifically lacks an ins umen ha allows o a quan i a i e assess- men o EBs in la ge samples and a simul aneous sepa a ion be ween s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. To add ess his gap, we de eloped a ques ion- nai e ha allows he sepa a ion and sys ema ic compa ison o s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. The ollowing wo esea ch ques ions (RQ) guided ou esea ch: (1) To wha ex en does he newly de eloped ques ionnai e measu ing EBs ela ed o school science and he adap ed ques ionnai e measu ing EBs ela ed o p o essional science allow o o ming eliable scales? (2) Do s uden s hold diffe ing EBs wi h ega d o p o essional and school science a diffe en g ade le els? Me hods S udy design and p ocedu es We conduc ed ou coho s udy in Ge man academic- ack schools (Gymnasium) be ween 2017 and 2019 o in es iga e s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. The sample comp ised 405 seconda y school s uden s ( emale = 221, male = 1004 F. VOITLE ET AL. 178, di e se = 3, M age = 13.4 yea s, SD age = 1.60). In ou sample, 9.9% o he s uden s ini ially lea ned a fi s language o he han Ge man and 20.7% we e aised mul i- lingual. The socioeconomic s a us wi hin ou sample was a he high, wi h 66.2% o he s uden s ha ing a leas one pa en who had a ained he highes Ge man educa ional deg ee A le el (Abi u ) and 53.6% o he s uden s epo ing ha a leas one pa en s udied a a uni e si y. In Ge many, science educa ion in academic ack schools com- monly eaches biology, chemis y, and physics sepa a ely, bu no all subjec s a e being augh simul aneously in each school yea . To accoun o diffe en expe ience le els, we su eyed s uden s om g ade le els 6 (n= 132), 8 (n= 167) and 10 (n= 106). Da a collec ion ook place in Ge man du ing egula science classes. We ob ained in o med consen om all pa icipan s and hei pa en s. No incen i es we e gi en. The Fede al Minis y o Educa ion, Science and Cul u e in Schleswig-Hols ein, Ge many, and he heads o schools app o ed he s udy p o ocol. De elopmen o he ques ionnai e We de eloped a ques ionnai e wi h wo analogous i em se s which assess s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science and allow o di ec compa ison. Since i is he mos equen ly used ins umen o assessing EBs abou science (Lee e al., 2021) and fi s analy ical checks o he use o a Ge man e sion by U hahne and Hop (2004) a e a ailable, we used he ques ionnai e by Conley e al. (2004) as he basis o his p ocess. The ques ionnai e assesses s uden s’EBs abou science in p o essional con ex s. We ex ended i s scope by adding pa allel i ems ha a ge analogous si ua ions in school science. Ou ques ionnai e de elopmen ollowed h ee s eps: Fi s , we cons uc ed gene al desc ip ions o he EB dimensions Sou ce, Ce ain y, De elopmen , and Jus ifica ion o he con ex o p o essional science and school science. We summa ised desc ip ions o he con ex o p o essional science p o ided by Conley e al. (2004) as well as ela ed a icles and o mula ed de ailed desc ip ions ela ed o p o essional science (see Sup- plemen al Ma e ial 1). In o de o o m school- ela ed desc ip ions o he EB dimen- sions (see Table 2), en i ies o si ua ions exclusi e o he con ex o p o essional science we e sys ema ically exchanged wi h ph ases explici ly e e ing o school science. Second, we cons uc ed 26 i ems o he school science con ex ha we e analogous o he exis ing 26 i ems o he p o essional science con ex by Conley e al. (2004). Table 2. Desc ip ions o he school- ela ed EB dimensions. Dimension Desc ip ion Sou ce Comp ises a lea ne ’s pe sonal ela ion o au ho i ies who a e ele an and impo an in science class ( eache s and ex books). The sou ce o knowledge in science class is ei he loca ed as ex e nal o in e nal. Ce ain y Re e s o pe sonal iews as o whe he ques ions in science class ha e always one co ec and absolu e answe . De elopmen Comp ises he conside a ion o one’s own knowledge in science class as ei he s a ic o dynamic and subjec o change. P og ession and ad ancemen o knowledge can be ela ed o he (addi i e) ex ension, eo ganisa ion o quali a i e, con en -wise changes o knowledge. Jus ifica ion Comp ises answe s o he ques ion o how knowledge can be achie ed and jus ified in science class. Focuses on he ole o expe imen s o scien ific inqui y in science class. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1005 Howe e , he ques ionnai e by Conley e al. (2004) is no comple ely consis en in i s use o e minology e e ing o he con ex o p o essional science. Some i ems in he dimen- sion Sou ce a ge school science a he han p o essional science. Fo hese i ems we de eloped analogous i em pai s wi h i em siblings e e ing o one o he con ex s each. We ans o med he i ems by sys ema ically exchanging ph ases ela ed o p o- essional science wi h ph ases e e ing o school science (see Supplemen al Ma e ials 2 and 3 o a able o analogous ph ases). Fo example, he Ce ain y i em In scien ific esea ch, scien is s always ag ee abou wha is ue ha e e s o p o essional science was ans o med o he analogous school- ela ed i em In science class, we always ag ee abou wha is ue. Analogous ph ases esul ed om a ecu si e p ocess du ing which we checked he sui abili y o analogous ph ases wi hin a pai o i ems as well as ac oss all i ems un il we eached consis ency. Thi d, we p e-pilo ed he newly de eloped i ems o he school-science con ex in a pape -and-pencil assignmen , as well as in sho in e iews wi h a ocus g oup o eigh h-g ade s. In he p e-pilo ing o he school- ela ed i ems we checked whe he e e ing o in eg a ed school science ( a he han sepa a e school subjec s) i i a ed s u- den s. S uden s commen ed on he ques ionnai e and p o ided eedback on he i em o mula ions. Responses o se e al i ems showed ceiling effec s o dis inc peaks o example on he ou h esponse op ion and some s uden s asked o a highe numbe o esponse ca ego ies (‘I would like o ha e mo e possible op ions o answe s’). The e o e, in addi ion o mino changes o i em o mula ions, p e-pilo ing led o usage o a 7-poin Like -scale in o de o inc ease he sensi i i y o he scale. Finally, a panel o expe s om science educa ion (n= 3) e iewed he e ised i ems. All i ems we e discussed and modified un il consensus among expe s and au ho s was eached. Measu es The ques ionnai e adminis e ed in he p esen s udy consis ed o 26 analogous i em pai s (fi e i em pai s on Sou ce, six on Ce ain y, six on De elopmen , and nine on Jus ifica- ion) assessed wi h a 7-poin Like -scale anging om 1 do no ag ee a all o 7 comple- ely ag ee. I is common o in e p e s uden s’ esponses in e ms o sophis ica ion wi h highe ag eemen indica ing highe sophis ica ion (Conley e al., 2004). In con as o De elopmen and Jus ifica ion, i ems on Sou ce and Ce ain y we e s a ed om a pe - spec i e e e ed o as less sophis ica ed by Conley e al. (2004). We andomised i ems on he ou dimensions wi hin he i em se s ela ed o p o essional and school science, wi h he school- ela ed i em se p esen ed fi s (see ull lis o i ems in Ge man and English in he Supplemen al Ma e ials 2 and 3). Psychome ic p ope ies o he ques ionnai e Fi s , we pe o med confi ma o y ac o analyses (CFA) o assess he ques ionnai e’s dimensional s uc u e in e ms o model fi and ac o loadings as well as he disc imi- na o y powe o he i ems. Sepa a ely speci ying EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science, we an wo CFAs wi h ou ac o s and 26 i ems each. Benchma ks indica ing a good model fi a e alues o a leas .90 (o be e .95) o Compa a i e Fi Index 1006 F. VOITLE ET AL. (CFI) and Tucke -Lewis Index (TLI) and alues o .08 (o be e .06) o Roo Mean Squa e E o o App oxima ion (RMSEA) and S anda dised Roo Mean Squa e Residual (SRMR) (Sch eibe e al., 2006). We u he analysed modifica ion indices o iden i y possible sou ces o measu emen e o due o i em o mula ion and conside ed s anda - dised ac o loadings g ea e .40 as accep able. I ems combined in a scale we e selec ed o ha e a disc imina o y powe , ha is, i em- o al co ela ion, i ≥0.3. We calcula ed C on- bach’sα o measu e scales’in e nal consis ency and aimed o alues abo e α≥.70. Since eliabili y coefficien s o mos sel - epo measu es ange be ween α= .50 and .70 (Muis e al., 2006), we e alua ed hese coefficien s as accep able. In addi ion, we calcula ed he composi e eliabili y (CR) and he a e age a iance ex ac ed (AVE). In line wi h Huang e al. (2013), we aimed o alues abo e .70 o CR and highe han .40 o .50 o AVE (Fo nell & La cke , 1981). All h ee coefficien s aken oge he gi e insigh s in o he in e nal consis ency as well as explained a iance due o he cons uc . To main ain ana- logous i em pai s, and he e o e allow a di ec compa ison be ween EBs ela ed o p o- essional and school science, we excluded i ems and hei espec i e siblings om he o he con ex in u he analyses, i hey did no mee he a o emen ioned c i e ia (see Supplemen al Ma e ial 4 o omission c i e ia applying o each i em). We e iewed each excluded i em pai c i ically o con ex ual suppo o i s exclusion o ensu e ha scale o ma ion did no impai he scope o he ins umen . In o al, 13 i em pai s emained in he final ins umen . An o e iew o he final scales’psychome ic p ope ies is p o ided in Table 3 (see Supplemen al Ma e ial 5 o in e co ela ions o final scales). Second, we assessed whe he EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science should be conside ed as wo sepa a e cons uc s. Fo his pu pose, we used CFAs o compa e diffe en heo e ical models and analysed he ex en o which EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science can be dis inguished empi ically. We used bo h da a se s o he espec i e CFAs and due o he pa allel i em o mula ions co ela ed he e o s o ana- logous i ems o each i em pai . Based on ou concep ualisa ion o EBs ela ed o p o essional as well as school science, we assumed ha he scales o ou ins umen would be bes ep esen ed wi h a model in which he EB dimensions as well as he con ex we e conside ed in he ac o s uc u e. The e o e, we heo e ically defined a CFA model o eigh ac o s, each ep esen ing one o he EB dimensions ela ed ei he o he con ex o p o essional o school science (Model A). In Model A, i em siblings load on o diffe en ac o s. Al e na i e models we e analysed in o de o compa e he fi o compe ing models and ule ou o he heo e ical concep ualisa ions (see Supplemen al Ma e ial 6 o an o e iew o he compe ing models). In o de o compa e he compe ing models, we Table 3. O e iew o he EB scales. Scales measu ing he EB dimensions Numbe o i ems C onbach’sα I em- o al co ela ion ( i ) Composi e eliabili y A e age a iance ex ac ed School P o . School P o . School P o . School P o . School P o . Sou ce 3 3 .62 .71 .39 –.46 .40 –.64 .36 .48 .36 .48 Ce ain y 3 3 .58 .68 .38 –.39 .43 –.56 .31 .42 .31 .42 De elopmen 3 3 .55 .65 .29 –.44 .38 –.51 .32 .39 .34 .40 Jus ifica ion 4 4 .60 .69 .30 –.47 .37 –.52 .35 .44 .30 .37 No e. School = School science con ex ; P o . = P o essional science con ex . INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1007 ha school- ela ed EBs seem o ha e simila p ope ies o EBs ela ed o p o essional science bu ne e heless a e significan ly diffe en in di ec compa isons o he scales. Fu he mo e, o bo h con ex s, we ound diffe ences in he exp essed ag eemen wi h EB scales be ween g ade le els o some o he dimensions. Fo EBs ela ed o p o- essional science, he diffe ences we e consis en , wi h significan ly highe ag eemen occu ing o highe g ade le els. This is in line wi h exis ing ela ed esea ch on s u- den s’ iews abou science and scien ific inqui y (Rei h & Neh ing, 2020; Solomon e al., 1996) and s udies on EBs ha mos ly epo ed highe sco es a highe g ade le els, al hough hese s udies a ied ega ding he dimensions and g ade le els in which significan diffe ences occu ed (K eme & Maye , 2013; Osbo ne e al., 2013; U hahne e al., 2008). Fo EBs ela ed o school science, ou findings we e less consis en . In pa icula , o he school- ela ed Jus ifica ion scale, we ound significan ly lowe sco es o highe g ade le els compa ed o he sco e o g ade 6. P e iously, his phenomenon o younge s uden s exp essing highe ag eemen wi h Jus ifica ion i ems had also occu ed in Ge man samples (K eme & Maye , 2013; U hahne e al., 2008). The au ho s’explana ion e e ed o he Ge man cu iculum, in which conside - able ime and effo a e applied, especially in ea ly seconda y educa ion, o eaching wi h expe imen al p ac ices. Howe e , we canno ule ou o he influences, as ou sample was, o example, he e ogeneous in e ms o diffe en science eache s. The g owing con en knowledge in he a ea o science o he olde s uden s could be a ac o ha shapes he s uden s’ iew o become mo e scep ical abou science epis emology. Howe e , esea ch indica es ha he e is no necessa ily a linea ela ionship be ween he inc ease o scien ific knowledge and a mo e scep ical s ance owa ds science epis em- ology (B omme e al., 2008). Finally, he empi ical esul s o ou s udy suppo ou cen al assump ion o subs an- ial diffe ences be ween EBs ela ed o school science and EBs ela ed o p o essional science. Ou analysis wi hin g ade le els allowed us o compa e s uden s’ esponses o he EB scales ela ed o p o essional and school science. Wi h wo excep ions (De elop- men : g ade 6; Jus ifica ion: g ade 8), we ound significan diffe ences be ween he school and p o essional con ex s o all scales and g ade le els in a ou o p o essional science. The only excep ion om his pa e n occu ed in g ade 6 o Jus ifica ion, whe e highe mean alues occu ed o EBs ela ed o school science. These findings can be in e - p e ed wi h espec o he dual na u e o EBs as lea ning goals as well as p e equisi es o lea ning (B omme e al., 2010; Kampa e al., 2016). I EBs a e p ima ily conside ed as lea ning goals, s onge ag eemen wi h he scales o he ques ionnai e migh be e e ed o as sophis ica ed (Kampa e al., 2016; Lede man e al., 2002). This in e p e - a ion in e ms o sophis ica ion is commonly applied o EBs ela ed o p o essional science (Conley e al., 2004; Kizilgunes e al., 2009). Howe e , esea che s ha e poin ed ou ha in e p e a ions o EBs in e ms o sophis ica ion ail o acknowledge he pa icula demands inhe en o educa ional en i onmen s (Elby e al., 2016; Ho e , 2016). The sepa a e conside a ion o EBs ela ed o school science sugges s a middle g ound in his ongoing deba e. While EBs, when conside ed as lea ning goals, migh be in e p e ed in e ms o sophis ica ion (Conley e al., 2004), EBs p ima ily con- side ed as p e equisi es o lea ning migh be iewed h ough he lens o p oduc i i y (Elby e al., 2016). 1014 F. VOITLE ET AL. Fo ma ion o epis emic belie s scales In EB esea ch, one o he main challenges is he o ma ion o EB scales ha allow o a eliable assessmen (Mason, 2016; Muis e al., 2006). S udies showed ha high le els o C onbach’sαcanno necessa ily be expec ed and ha he epo ed le els o in e nal con- sis ency a y g ea ly be ween samples (Kizilgunes e al., 2009; K eme & Maye , 2013; U hahne & Hop , 2004). In a e iew a icle, Muis e al. (2006) ound ha eliabili y coeffi- cien s o sel - epo measu es on s uden s’EBs commonly ange be ween α= .50 and .70. In line wi h hese o me esul s, eliabili y measu ed in ou s udy anged be ween α= .55 and .62 o EBs ela ed o school science and α= .65 and .71 o EBs ela ed o p o- essional science. The AVE anges be ween .30 and .36 o EBs ela ed o school science and be ween .37 and .48 o EBs ela ed o p o essional science. While acco ding o he bounda ies sugges ed by Huang e al. (2013) AVE alues may be accep able o h ee ou o ou scales o EBs ela ed o p o essional science, AVE alues we e no ye sa is ac o y o he school science i em se . Fo bo h i em se s CR was below he aspi ed alues anging be ween CR = .31 and .36 o EBs ela ed o school science and CR = .39 and .48 o EBs ela ed o p o essional science. Howe e , as hese c i e ia we e no epo ed in he publica ions p o iding he o iginal English and Ge man e sion o he EB ques ionnai e by Conley e al. (2004) and U hahne and Hop (2004), we a e no able o compa e ou esul s o o me s udies. We he e o e need o ocus on C onbach’sα. The eliabili ies ound in ou s udy o C onbach’sαa e wi hin he ange commonly ound and epo ed in o he s udies on EBs (Muis e al., 2006). A he same ime, findings om ou s udy on he fi o he model as well as he ac o load- ings a e well wi hin he cu -offc i e ia and hus p o ide suppo o he o e all s uc u e o he eigh ac o model (Hai e al., 2010). Rega ding he scales ela ed o p o essional science, we ound eliabili ies equal o o abo e he es ima es o he Ge man ansla ion (U hahne & Hop , 2004) and he ques ionnai e by Conley e al. (2004). Rega ding he scales ela ed o school science, we ob ained lowe eliabili y in compa ison o he wo scales o he PESS (Villanue a e al., 2019). Al hough C onbach’sαwe e sa is ac o y o all scales, conside a ion o AVE and CR alues as well as he eliabili ies ob ained o he PESS p omo e he desi e o u he imp o emen o he ques ionnai e as well as u u e esea ch in his ega d. Also conside ing he amoun o i em pai s ha we e excluded du ing scale o ma ion, i migh be beneficial o de elop addi ional i em pai s, in o de o u he imp o e he eliabili y o he ins umen and especially he scales ela ed o school science. Du ing scale o ma ion, we had o exclude 13 o he ini ial 26 i em pai s. The numbe o excluded i ems esul ed p ima ily om he pai wise omission o i ems which we pe - o med in a ou o pa allelism o he wo i em se s. Thus, he scale o ma ion le us wi h scales ha allow o di ec compa isons be ween he con ex s, while, a he same ime, he diminishing numbe o i ems pe dimension migh ha e esul ed in lowe eliabili ies. Howe e , i we had e ained om pai wise i em exclusion and only omi ed indi idual i ems, we would ha e p oduced he e ogeneous scales. These scales would hen no ha e been compa able. Howe e , ou p ocedu e affec ed he scope o he Jus ifica ion dimen- sion. In con as o he o iginal concep ualisa ion by Conley e al. (2004), he Jus ifica ion scales o ou s udy do no co e he use o mul iple me hods in science, and solely ocus on he ole o expe imen s. Howe e , his emphasis may be accep able wi h espec o he INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1015 impo an ole o expe imen s in school science p ac ice (A nold e al., 2014; Osbo ne e al., 2013). The compa ison o compe ing models e ealed ha an eigh - ac o model accoun ing o bo h, he con ex and dimension o science EBs, bes ep esen ed he da a. This is in line wi h ou heo e ical concep ualisa ion o EBs ela ed o school science sepa a ely om EBs ela ed o p o essional science. Ou s udy he e o e p o ides empi ical e idence ha a ou s he dis inc ion o EBs ela ed o diffe en con ex s o science o e hei joined conside a ion. Fu he mo e, compa ison o compe ing models sugges s a ela ionship be ween he EB dimensions and he conside ed con ex ha is no domina ed by ei he o hese ac o s. Finally, his finding p o ides empi ical suppo o he claims o o he au ho s, who a gued o a dis inc ion be ween he con ex s o p o essional and school science (e.g. Hogan, 2000; Sando al, 2005). Limi a ions E en hough ou s udy sheds ligh on a e y impo an opic wi hin he discussion on science EBs, we need o ou line some limi a ions o ou s udy. Fi s ly, diffe ences in he epo ed deg ees o eedom occu ed in he epo ed - es s and ANOVAs. These diffe ences esul ed om missing da a o indi idual s uden s. Secondly, ou esul s a e based on c oss-sec ional da a. The e o e, ou coho s udy can only gi e fi s hin s on longi udinal in e ences ega ding he de elopmen o EBs du ing seconda y edu- ca ion. We canno ule ou bias ac oss coho s no effec s om s uden s fi s answe ing EB scales ela ed o school science and subsequen ly answe ing scales ela ed o p o- essional science. The e o e, highe ag eemen wi h scales o p o essional science migh be due o sequen ial o posi ional effec s. Fu u e s udies may add ess his limi - a ion by longi udinally in es iga ing EBs ela ed o school science and EBs ela ed o p o- essional science simul aneously, using a balanced ques ionnai e design. Finally, due o he missing baseline da a o he Ge man and English e sions o he o iginal ques ion- nai e ega ding he AVE and CR alues, easons o ou low alues a e difficul o de e - mine. P ospec i ely, in es iga ing and epo ing ex e nal psychome ic quali ies such as he conside a ion o ela ions be ween he assessed EBs and lea ning ela ed a iables migh be a p omising app oach o os e unde s anding abou he ela ionship be ween EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. Di ec ions o u he esea ch and conclusion The esul s and he ques ionnai e p esen ed in his s udy lay he g oundwo k o u u e esea ch on he ela ionship be ween s uden s’science lea ning and hei EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. To ou knowledge, ou s udy diffe en ia es o he fi s ime empi ically be ween EB conce ning school and p o essional science. Fu he esea ch has o elabo a e specifically he in e play be ween ins uc ional and lea ning- ela ed effec s on he o ma ion o hese belie s. Fi s , co ela ional s udies in la ge and p e e ably ep esen a i e samples may be conduc ed o assess whe he s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science possess diffe ing ele ance o s uden s’lea n- ing. Second, since we de eloped pa allel i em se s o EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science, diffe en ial mani es a ions o he espec i e EBs can be in es iga ed. 1016 F. VOITLE ET AL. Resea che s should conside i u u e in e en ional s udies designed o os e EBs migh benefi om using ou ques ionnai e in addi ion o quali a i e, p ocedu al me hods. Finally, a supplemen al assessmen using a mixed me hods app oach seems pa icula ly ui ul in he ligh o in e p e ing EBs ela ed o school science beyond common iews o sophis ica ion and ins ead h ough he lens o p oduc i i y as sugges ed o example, by Elby e al. (2016). In pa icula , using he de eloped ins umen in a mixed me hods app oach migh allow o link assessmen s o ‘p ac ical epis emologies’(Sando al, 2005, p. 635) wi h co ela ional analyses linked o p io esea ch on ‘epis emological belie s in science’(Conley e al., 2004, p. 187). In his ega d, ou ques ionnai e p o ides a p om- ising ool o esea che s o add ess and hope ully b idge he gap be ween ‘s uden s’epis- emic belie s and hei p ac ices in school science’(Lee e al., 2021, p.899). Howe e , wi h ega d o science eaching, con inued effo s a e needed o gain a comp ehensi e unde - s anding o s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science ha will p o ide ea- che s wi h powe ul knowledge o b idge s uden s’‘pa allel ways o knowing’ (Edmondson & No ak, 1993, p. 550) and efficien ly os e s uden s’EBs abou science. In ou s udy, we success ully assessed s uden s’EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science. Ini ially, we aced he ques ion o how bes o assess hese EBs. We had he wo op ions o ei he using exis ing bu s uc u ally and concep ually diffe en ins umen s, o de eloping a new ques ionnai e ha allows o pa allel assessmen and ensu es com- pa abili y. We chose he la e and belie e ha ou esul s affi m ou decision. Ou esul s indica e ha we succeeded in sepa a ely measu ing EBs ela ed o p o essional and school science and p o ide empi ical suppo o hei dis inc ion, which allows o in e ences wi h espec o bo h con ex s. Acknowledgemen s We would like o hank I ene Neumann (IPN Kiel) and Julia Schwanewedel (Uni e si ä Hambu g) o he ui ul discussions du ing he de elopmen o he esea ch idea and he measu - ing ins umen . Disclosu e s a emen No po en ial conflic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho (s). ORCID F auke Voi le h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-1795-7170 Benedik Heuckmann h p://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5008-6031 Nele Kampa h p://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5633-9335 Ke s in K eme h p://o cid.o g/0000-0003-2305-3650 Re e ences A nold, J. C., K eme , K., & Maye , J. (2014). Unde s anding s uden s’expe imen s—wha kind o suppo do hey need in inqui y asks? In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,36(16), 2719– 2749. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2014.930209 Bay elman, A., Io danou, K., & Cons an inou, C. P. (2020). Epis emic belie s and p io knowledge as p edic o s o he cons uc ion o diffe en ypes o a gumen s on socioscien ific issues. Jou nal o Resea ch in Science Teaching,57(8), 1199–1227. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ ea.21627 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1017 Be nhol , A., Lind o s, M., & Winbe g, M. (2021). S uden s’epis emic belie s in Sweden and Ge many and hei in e ela ions wi h class oom cha ac e is ics. Scandina ian Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch,65(1), 54–70. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/00313831.2019.1651763 B omme, R., Kienhues, D., & S ahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epis emological belie s: An in ima e bu complica e ela ionship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and belie s (pp. 423–441). Sp inge . h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_20 B omme, R., Pieschl, S., & S ahl, E. (2010). Epis emological belie s a e s anda ds o adap i e lea n- ing: A unc ional heo y abou epis emological belie s and me acogni ion. Me acogni ion and Lea ning,5(1), 7–26. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11409-009-9053-5 Bu gin, S. R., & Sadle , T. D. (2013). Consis ency o p ac ical and o mal epis emologies o science held by pa icipan s o a esea ch app en iceship. Resea ch in Science Educa ion,43(6), 2179– 2206. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11165-013-9351-4 Cohen, J. (1988). S a is ical powe analysis o he beha io al sciences, 2nd edn. Á/L. E baum P ess. Conley, A. M., Pin ich, P. R., Veki i, I., & Ha ison, D. (2004). Changes in epis emological belie s in elemen a y science s uden s. Con empo a y Educa ional Psychology,29(2), 186–204. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004 Edmondson, K. M., & No ak, J. D. (1993). The in e play o scien ific epis emological iews, lea n- ing s a egies, and a i udes o college s uden s. Jou nal o Resea ch in Science Teaching,30(6), 547–559. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ ea.3660300604 Elby, A., Mac ande , C., & Hamme , D. (2016). Epis emic cogni ion in science. In J. A. G eene, W. A. Sando al, & I. B å en (Eds.), Educa ional psychology handbook. Handbook o epis emic cogni- ion (pp. 113–127). Taylo and F ancis. Elde , A. D. (2002). Cha ac e izing fi h g ade s uden s’epis emological belie s in science. In B. K. Ho e , & P. R. Pin ich (Eds.), Pe sonal epis emology: The psychology o belie s abou knowledge and knowing (pp. 347–363). Rou ledge. Fo nell, C., & La cke , D. F. (1981). E alua ing s uc u al equa ion models wi h unobse able a i- ables and measu emen e o . Jou nal o Ma ke ing Resea ch,18(1), 39–50. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1177/002224378101800104 G eene, J. A., Sando al, W. A., & B å en, I. (Eds.). (2016). Educa ional psychology handbook. Handbook o epis emic cogni ion. Taylo and F ancis. Hai , J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Ande son, R. E. (2010). Mul i a ia e da a analysis (7 h ed.). P en ice-Hall, Inc. Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P–O. (2013). S uden engagemen wi h a e ac s and scien ific ideas in a labo a o y and a concep -mapping ac i i y. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,35(13), 2254–2277. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2012.743696 Ho e , B. K. (2000). Dimensionali y and disciplina y diffe ences in pe sonal epis emology. Con empo a y Educa ional Psychology,25(4), 378–405. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/ceps.1999.1026 Ho e , B. K. (2016). Epis emic cogni ion as a psychological cons uc : Ad ancemen s and chal- lenges. In J. A. G eene, W. A. Sando al, & I. B å en (Eds.), Educa ional psychology handbook. Handbook o epis emic cogni ion (pp. 31–50). Taylo and F ancis. Ho e , B. K., & Pin ich, P. R. (1997). The de elopmen o epis emological heo ies: Belie s abou knowledge and knowing and hei ela ion o lea ning. Re iew o Educa ional Resea ch,67(1), 88–140. h ps://doi.o g/10.3102/00346543067001088 Hogan, K. (2000). Explo ing a p ocess iew o s uden s’knowledge abou he na u e o science. Science Educa ion,84(1), 51–70. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<51:: AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-H Huang, C. C., Wang, Y. M., Wu, T. W., & Wang, P. A. (2013). An empi ical analysis o he an e- ceden s and pe o mance consequences o using he moodle pla o m. In e na ional Jou nal o In o ma ion and Educa ion Technology,3(2), 217. h ps://doi.o g/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267 Kampa, N., Neumann, I., Hei mann, P., & K eme , K. (2016). Epis emological belie s in science—a pe son-cen e ed app oach o in es iga e high school s uden s’p ofiles. Con empo a y Educa ional Psychology,46,81–93. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.007 1018 F. VOITLE ET AL. Ka akolidis, A., Pi sia, V., & Em alo is, A. (2019). The case o high mo i a ion and low achie e- men in science: Wha is he ole o s uden s’epis emic belie s? In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion, 1457–1474. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2019.1612121 Khish e, R., & Lede man, N. G. (2007). Rela ionship be ween ins uc ional con ex and iews o na u e o science. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,29(8), 939–961. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.1080/09500690601110947 Ki chene , R. F. (2002). Folk epis emology: An in oduc ion. New Ideas in Psychology,20(2-3), 89– 105. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00003-X Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungu , S. (2009). Modeling he ela ions among s uden s’epis emo- logical belie s, mo i a ion, lea ning app oach, and achie emen . The Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch,102(4), 243–256. h ps://doi.o g/10.3200/JOER.102.4.243-256 Kline, R. B. (2016). P inciples and P ac ice o S uc u al Equa ion Modeling (4 h ed.). New Yo k, NY: The Guil o d P ess. K eme , K., & Maye , J. (2013). En wicklung und S abili ä on Vo s ellungen übe die Na u de Na u wissenscha en [De elopmen and s abili y o concep ions o he na u e o science]. Zei sch i ü Didak ik de Na u wissenscha en,19,77–101. Lede man, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwa z, R. S. (2002). Views o na u e o science ques ionnai e: Towa d alid and meaning ul assessmen o lea ne s’concep ions o na u e o science. Jou nal o Resea ch in Science Teaching,39(6), 497–521. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ ea.10034 Lee, S.W.–Y., Liang, J.–C., & Tsai, C.–C. (2016). Do sophis ica ed epis emic belie s p edic mean- ing ul lea ning? Findings om a s uc u al equa ion model o unde g adua e biology lea ning. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,38(15), 2327–2345. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/ 09500693.2016.1240384 Lee, S. W.-Y., Luan, H., Lee, M.-H., Chang, H.-Y., Liang, J.-C., Lee, Y.-H., Lin, T.-J., Wu, A.-H., Chiu, Y.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2021). Measu ing epis emologies in science lea ning and eaching: A sys ema ic e iew o he li e a u e. Science Educa ion,105(5), 880–907. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/sce. 105.5 Lin, T.–J., & Tsai, C.–C. (2017). De eloping ins umen s conce ning scien ific epis emic belie s and goal o ien a ions in lea ning science: A alida ion s udy. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,39(17), 2382–2401. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2017.1384593 Liu, S.–Y., & Tsai, C.–C. (2008). Diffe ences in he scien ific epis emological iews o unde g adu- a e s uden s. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,30(8), 1055–1073. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1080/09500690701338901 Mason, L. (2016). Psychological pe spec i es on measu ing epis emic cogni ion. In J. A. G eene, W. A. Sando al, & I. B å en (Eds.), Educa ional psychology handbook. Handbook o epis emic cogni ion (pp. 375–392). Taylo and F ancis. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Hae le, F. C. (2006). Domain-gene ali y and domain-specifici y in pe sonal epis emology esea ch: Philosophical and empi ical eflec ions in he de elopmen o a heo e ical amewo k. Educa ional Psychology Re iew,18(1), 3–54. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/ s10648-006-9003-6 Muis, K. R., T e o s, G., Duffy, M., Ranellucci, J., & Foy, M. J. (2016). Tes ing he TIDE: Examining he na u e o s uden s’epis emic belie s using a mul iple me hods app oach. The Jou nal o Expe imen al Educa ion,84(2), 264–288. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048843 Neh ing, A. (2020). Naï e and in o med iews on he na u e o scien ific inqui y in la ge-scale assessmen s: Two sides o he same coin o diffe en cu encies? Jou nal o Resea ch in Science Teaching,57(4), 510–535. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ ea.21598 OECD (Ed.). (2019). Pisa. PISA 2018 assessmen and analy ical amewo k. OECD. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.1787/19963777 Osbo ne, J., Simon, S., Ch is odoulou, A., Howell-Richa dson, C., & Richa dson, K. (2013). Lea ning o a gue: A s udy o ou schools and hei a emp o de elop he use o a gumen a- ion as a common ins uc ional p ac ice and i s impac on s uden s. Jou nal o Resea ch in Science Teaching,50(3), 315–347. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ ea.21073 Rei h, M., & Neh ing, A. (2020). Scien ific easoning and iews on he na u e o scien ificinqui y: Tes ing a new amewo k o unde s and and model epis emic cogni ion in science. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,42(16), 2716–2741. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2020.1834168 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 1019 Rosseel, Y. (2012). la aan: An Rpackage o s uc u al equa ion modeling. Jou nal o S a is ical So wa e,48(2), 1–36. h ps://doi.o g/10.18637/jss. 048.i02 RS udio: In eg a ed de elopmen en i onmen o R [Compu e so wa e]. (2020). RS udio, PBC. Bos on, MA. h p://www. s udio.com/ Sando al, W. A. (2005). Unde s anding s uden s’p ac ical epis emologies and hei influence on lea ning h ough inqui y. Science Educa ion,89(4), 634–656. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/sce.20065 Sando al, W. A. (2016). Disciplina y insigh s in o he s udy o epis emic cogni ion. In J. A. G eene, W. A. Sando al, & I. B å en (Eds.), Educa ional psychology handbook. Handbook o epis emic cogni ion (pp. 184–194). Taylo and F ancis. Schalk, K. A. (2012). A socioscien ific cu iculum acili a ing he de elopmen o dis al and p ox- imal NOS concep ualiza ions. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,34(1), 1–24. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2010.546895 Schie e , J., Golle, J., Tibus, M., He bein, E., Gindele, V., T au wein, U., & Oscha z, K. (2020). Effec s o an ex acu icula science in e en ion on elemen a y school child en’s epis emic belie s: A andomized con olled ial. B i ish Jou nal o Educa ional Psychology,90(2), 382– 402. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/bjep.12301 Schomme , M., C ouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epis emological belie s and ma hema ical ex comp ehension: Belie ing i is simple does no make i so. Jou nal o Educa ional Psychology, 84(4), 435. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.435 Sch eibe , J. B., No a, A., S age, F. K., Ba low, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Repo ing s uc u al equa ion modeling and confi ma o y ac o analysis esul s: A e iew. The Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch,99(6), 323–338. h ps://doi.o g/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 She, H.–C., Lin, H., & Huang, L.–Y. (2019). Reflec ions on and implica ions o he p og amme o in e na ional s uden assessmen 2015 (PISA 2015) pe o mance o s uden s in Taiwan: The ole o epis emic belie s abou science in scien ific li e acy. Jou nal o Resea ch in Science Teaching, 56(10), 1309–1340. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ ea.21553 Solomon, J., Sco , L., & Du een, J. (1996). La ge-scale explo a ion o pupils’unde s anding o he na u e o science. Science Educa ion,80(5), 493–508. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X (199609)80:5<493::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-6 S a hopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Explo ing he ela ionship be ween physics- ela ed epis- emological belie s and physics unde s anding. Con empo a y Educa ional Psychology,32(3), 255–281. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.12.002 Tsai, C.–C., & Liu, S.–Y. (2005). De eloping a mul i-dimensional ins umen o assessing s u- den s’epis emological iews owa d science. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,27 (13), 1621–1638. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500690500206432 U hahne, D., & Hop , M. (2004). Epis emologische Übe zeugungen in den na u wissenscha en und ih e zusammenhänge mi mo i a ion, selbs konzep und le ns a egien [epis emological belie s in science and hei ela ionships wi h mo i a ion, sel -concep and lea ning-s a egies]. Zei sch i ü Didak ik de Na u wissenscha en,10(1), 71–87. U hahne, D., K eme , K., & Maye , J. (2008). Welches e s andnis haben jugendliche on de na u de na u wissenscha en? En wicklung und e s e sch i e zu alidie ung eines agebo- gens [wha unde s anding possess adolescen s o na u e o science? De elopmen and fi s s eps o alida ion o a ques ionnai e]. Un e ich swissenscha ,36(1), 71. Villanue a, M. G., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & The ien, W. (2019). The concep ualiza ion and De elopmen o he p ac ical epis emology in science su ey (PESS). Resea ch in Science Educa ion,49(3), 635–655. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11165-017-9629-z Wu, H.–K., & Wu, C.–L. (2011). Explo ing he de elopmen o fi h g ade s’p ac ical epis em- ologies and explana ion skills in inqui y-based lea ning class ooms. Resea ch in Science Educa ion,41(3), 319–340. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11165-010-9167-4 Yang, F. Y., Bhaga , K. K., & Cheng, C. H. (2019). Associa ions o epis emic belie s in science and scien ific easoning in uni e si y s uden s om Taiwan and India. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion,41(10), 1347–1365. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09500693.2019.1606960 1020 F. VOITLE ET AL.