Enhancing belief change with refutation podcast conversations

Background Refutation interventions address misconceptions by explicitly identifying a belief as incorrect and providing a scientific explanation. The impact of these interventions on belief change may be enhanced through cognitive modeling, in which a model person verbalizes their thought process when engaging with a refutation intervention. This allows learners to observe the model's reasoning process and overcome their own misconceptions. Aims This study examined the effect of using cognitive modeling of the belief change processes in a refutation podcast to effectively debunk the learning styles myth. Sample Participants were N = 214 university students from different disciplines. Methods We developed a podcast featuring a conversation in which an expert refutes the learning styles myth, while a layperson verbalizes their thought process during the dialogue. We compared the modeling condition to standard refutation and non-refutation conditions, assessing the effects both immediately after the intervention and at follow-up. Dependent variables included participants’ beliefs about the learning styles myth, confidence accuracy, and the correctness of their written justifications. Results Contrary to expectations, cognitive modeling did not provide an additional benefit. Our results show that all podcast types were equally effective in addressing the misconception and improving learners’ confidence accuracy. However, learners in both refutation conditions wrote more correct and elaborate justifications. Conclusions This study underscores the potential of podcast conversations as an effective tool for addressing misconceptions. The direct refutation structure seems to enhance its effectiveness in tasks that require deeper cognitive engagement, such as generating elaborate justifications.