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

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.

How to Change Epistemological Beliefs? Effects of Scientific Controversies, Epistemological Sensitization, and Critical Thinking Instructions on Epistemological Change

“…The integrated approach allows the topic of epistemological change to be studied from either a dimensional or a developmental stage perspective. In this paper, we focus on the developmental stage perspective to fit this study in the previous research efforts of Rosman et al [8] and Klopp and Stark [9]. In addition to this, epistemological change as the temporal development of epistemological beliefs results from an asynchronous change in individual profiles of epistemological belief dimensions [18].…”

“…In contrast to the classical developmental approach, which allows only the categorization of an individual as being an absolutist, multiplicist, or evaluativist, e.g., [19]. The integrated approach allows the assessment of these three levels simultaneously while still building on the individual epistemological beliefs profile, e.g., [3,9,16,20]…”

“…A possible starting point is the various components of the process model on which this intervention concept relies. Klopp and Stark [9] presented an episte-mological sensitization that was aimed at epistemological doubt. In particular, they focused on the induction of domain-specific doubt as a facilitator for the topic-specific doubt that should result from the presentation of the controversies.…”

“…But this ill-defined knowledge structure confronts students with more general problems. Klopp and Stark [9] argue that novice students in particular cannot cope with these kinds of inconsistencies due to their lack of knowledge of the philosophy of science and methodological concepts. Following Rosman et al [8], these problems result in the development of multiplicist epistemological beliefs, i.e., the belief that knowledge consists merely of opinions of which everyone is true in their own right.…”

“…The intervention draws on the presentation of psychological controversies to elicit epistemological change towards evaluativist beliefs [10]. We also describe a measure that aims to improve the intervention's effectiveness, i.e., an epistemological sensitization, cf., [9,11] and critical thinking instructions [12]. This intervention is evaluated with a sample of student teachers.…”