Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 325–340 | Cite as

A Preliminary Investigation of the Influences of Refutation Text and Instructional Design

  • Noah L. Schroeder
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

Teachers are often tasked with changing their students’ conceptions about scientific topics. One strategy that has been found effective for conceptual change is the use of refutation text. However, reviewing the literature revealed that many practical questions around the use refutation text have not been adequately addressed. A secondary issue is that teachers often create instructional videos for their students to view outside of class, but little guidance exists on how to design these videos. This study begins to examine the intersection of refutation text, conceptual change, and instructional video design by testing (a) the effects of traditional refutation text and soft refutation text on conceptual change when presented as narration in an instructional video, (b) the effects of traditional refutation text compared to soft refutation text when presented as narration on conceptual change in an instructional video, and (c) the influence of the presence of a human hand in the instructional video on cognitive, affective, and conceptual change scores. The results indicated that traditional refutation text and soft refutation text retain their effectiveness when presented as narration in an instructional video; soft refutation text and traditional refutation text produced nearly identical conceptual change when presented as narration in an instructional video; and the inclusion of a human hand in the instructional video did not influence conceptual change, learning, or the learners’ perceptions of the instructor. The preliminary implications for theory and practice are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

Keywords

Refutation text Conceptual change Instructional design Conceptions Flipped instruction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Todd Pavlack for their technical assistance in creating the different learning conditions.

References

  1. Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borel, B. (2014). Core truths: 10 common GMO claims debunked. Popular Science. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked on January 12, 2015.
  4. Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferry, N., & Gatehouse, A. M. R. (Eds.). (2009). Environmental impact of genetically modified crops. Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
  6. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.Google Scholar
  11. Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: Assessing accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 20, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of the speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of contextual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle-school students’ attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers and Education, 53(2), 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conceptions: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenberg-Kima, R., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2741–4756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 2, 291–314.Google Scholar
  22. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect learner’s cognitive and affective outcomes? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2(2), 114–133.Google Scholar
  23. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Impacts of pedagogical agent gender in an accessible learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 401–411.Google Scholar
  24. Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Barouch Gilbert, R. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schroeder, N. L., & Gotch, C. M. (2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tippet, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van der Meij, H. (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Leadership Studies in Education and OrganizationsWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options