Healing from Doubt or Hardening Beliefs? The Impact of Cartesian Method Pedagogy on Student Epistemic Beliefs and Academic Self-Efficacy

Abstract

This study investigates the pedagogical impact of René Descartes’ method of analysis on higher education students. The central inquiry is whether teaching this method fosters robust, self-reliant inquiry or inadvertently promotes epistemic rigidity. A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test design was employed with 180 undergraduate philosophy students across three groups: a Cartesian Method group, a Collaborative Inquiry group, and a Control group. Over an 8-week intervention, we measured changes in epistemic beliefs (certainty, source, justification) and academic self-efficacy using validated scales. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that the Cartesian Method group showed significant gains in academic self-efficacy for logical argumentation. However, this group also developed stronger beliefs in knowledge certainty and individual intuition as a source of truth, alongside a diminished appreciation for knowledge derived from collaboration or empirical evidence. These findings suggest that while Cartesian pedagogy can bolster confidence in individual reasoning, it risks fostering absolutist epistemic stances, highlighting a critical trade-off for educators designing critical thinking curricula.