Effectiveness of Epistemic Beliefs and Scientific Argument to Improve Learning Process Quality

Abstract

The formation of scientific arguments by involving constructivist epistemic beliefs will produce deeper knowledge. This study uses a quasi-experimental research method involving 200 students from the science study program, namely biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics at a public university in Bandung. In the experimental group, students were divided into several groups based on the results of demographic analysis, including absolutists, relativists, and evaluativist. Furthermore, intervention was given to explain the criteria for scientific argumentation and instructions for scientific argumentation. The control group did not experience the division of roles and was not given intervention. The results showed that students in the experimental group produced scientific arguments and carried out the learning process better than the control class. The increase in the quality of the argumentation is marked by the number of alternative ideas and thought experiments used in the argument. In detail, of the three groups of students, the evaluative group was more critical and could generate more new ideas when discussing learning topics. In addition, evaluative groups are also more reliable in solving problems correctly. The relativist group shows a less critical and less confident attitude when interacting with others. The implication of this research is that scientific argumentation instruction can be used as an alternative in understanding conceptual and increasing students' epistemic beliefs.