Scientific Controversies and Epistemological Sensitization - Effects of an Intervention on Psychology Students’ Epistemological Beliefs and Argumentation Skills

Eric Klopp,Robin Stark

doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.785241

Abstract

The present study investigates the effects of an intervention presenting resolvable, scientific controversies and an epistemological sensitization measure on the changes in psychology students’ epistemological beliefs. Drawing on the notion that the presentation of resolvable scientific controversies induces epistemological doubt and the notion that inducing epistemological doubt is eased in the presence of an epistemological sensitization, we used an epistemological beliefs intervention consisting of five resolvable controversies that were applied in a sample consisting of psychology students. We hypothesized that the intervention would reduce absolutist and multiplist epistemological beliefs while, at the same time, increasing evaluativist beliefs. We also assumed that the epistemological sensitization would enhance the effect of the intervention. For a domain-specific questionnaire, the results indicated a reduction of absolutist epistemological beliefs regardless of the presence of the epistemological sensitization. Unexpectedly, there was a backfire effect indicated by a rise of multiplist beliefs. For a domain- and topic-specific questionnaire, there was no significant reduction of absolutist and multiplist beliefs but a significant increase in evaluativist beliefs when the epistemological sensitization was present. A measure assessing argumentation skills revealed an increase in argumentation skills only when the epistemological sensitization is present. Finally, we discuss limitations, educational implications, and directions for future research.

Highlights

The ability to develop a scientific style of argumentation is an essential part of the field of social sciences and is deeply related to scientific thinking itself (Fischer et al, 2014)
As indicated by the median scores (Table 3) in both experimental conditions, the epistemological sensitization is necessary to foster an evaluativist argumentation as the median in the experimental condition without an epistemological sensitization only reflects a multiplist argumentation. These results support our hypothesis H4 that the intervention fosters psychology students’ argumentation skills, and the hypothesis H5 that the epistemological sensitization strengthens the effects of the intervention
It seems to be the case that an evaluative argumentation skill is only obtained when the epistemological sensitization is present

Summary

Introduction

The ability to develop a scientific style of argumentation is an essential part of the field of social sciences and is deeply related to scientific thinking itself (Fischer et al, 2014). Epistemological beliefs develop during the enculturation within a certain domain and its respective scientific community (Muis et al, 2006; Palmer and Marra, 2008; Klopp and Stark, 2016) Such an enculturation process may be problematic as it is the case of psychology and its ill-defined knowledge structure. Rosman et al (2017) investigated the development of psychology students’ epistemological beliefs during the first four semesters Their results indicate an overall high level of multiplist epistemological beliefs, i.e., the belief that knowledge is arbitrary and each account is true in its own right, in psychology students. The enculturation in the domain of psychology with its inconsistent theories, definitions, paradigms, and empirical results leads to the development of multiplicist epistemological beliefs that are not favorable for argumentation skills (Kuhn, 2001). There is a need for interventions that counteract the development of multiplicist beliefs and that foster the development of evaluativist beliefs

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion