REFUTATION TEXT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF TWO DECADES OF RESEARCH

Article

ABSTRACT

As people attempt to make sense of the world, they develop personal knowledge structures. These structures often contain misconceptions—inaccurate or incomplete information—that are highly resistant to change because existing knowledge networks must be restructured to accommodate counterintuitive information in a process known as conceptual change. Since textbooks are the dominant resource for science instruction in most classrooms, text-based methods of facilitating conceptual change need to be examined. Since the mid-1980 s, researchers have investigated the conceptual change potential of refutation text, a text structure that includes elements of argumentation and that has been described as one of the most effective text-based means for modifying readers’ misconceptions. In this paper, twenty years of refutation text research in science and reading education is reviewed and then a secondary analysis of those results is conducted to explore developmental aspects of the efficacy of refutation text. Although a developmental relationship was not revealed, two decades of research indicate that reading refutation text rather than traditional expository text is more likely to result in conceptual change.

KEY WORDS

conceptual change misconceptions reading refutation text science education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2010_9203_MOESM1_ESM.doc (106 kb)
Refutation research studies (DOC 106 kb)

References

  1. AIP Operation Physics Project. (1998). Children's misconceptions about science. Retrieved from http://www.amasci.com/miscon/opphys.html.
  2. Alvermann, D., & Hague, S. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197–202.Google Scholar
  3. Alvermann, D., & Hynd, C. (1989). Study strategies for correcting misconceptions in physics: An intervention. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 353–361). Chicago, IL: NRC.Google Scholar
  4. Alvermann, D., Hynd, C., & Qian, G. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broughton, S., Sinatra, G., & Reynolds, R. (2007, August). Attention allocation, background knowledge and the refutation text effect. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  6. Chambliss, M. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J. León, & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 51–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M.T.H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction (Technical Report No. 583). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED361655).Google Scholar
  10. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiu, M., & Wong, S. (1995). Ninth graders' mental models and processes of generating inferences of four seasons [Abstract]. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 3, 23–68. Retrieved from http://www1.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/cjse/0301/0301023.htm.Google Scholar
  12. Diakidoy, I., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2002). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 464828).Google Scholar
  13. Dole, J., & Niederhauser, D. (1990). Students' level of commitment to their naïve conceptions and their conceptual change learning from texts. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 303–310). Chicago, IL: NRC.Google Scholar
  14. Dole, J., & Smith, E. (1989). Prior knowledge and learning from science text: An instructional study. In S. McCormick and J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 345–352). Chicago, IL: NRC.Google Scholar
  15. Duit, R., Treagust, D.F., & Widodo, A. (2008). Teaching science for conceptual change: Theory and practice. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 629–646). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002) Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3 rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: IRA.Google Scholar
  17. Frède, V. (2008). Teaching astronomy for pre-service elementary teachers: A comparison of methods. Advances in Space Research, 42, 1819–1830. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, C., & Rennie, B. (1987). Restructuring content schemata: An intervention study. Reading Research and Instruction, 26(3), 162–188.Google Scholar
  19. Guzzetti, B. (1990). Effects of textual and instructional manipulations on concept acquisition. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 11, 49–62.Google Scholar
  20. Guzzetti, B. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guzzetti, B., Snyder, T., & Glass, G. (1992). Promoting conceptual change in science: Can texts be used effectively? Journal of Reading, 35, 642–649.Google Scholar
  22. Guzzetti, B., Snyder, T., Glass, G., & Gamas, W. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guzzetti, B., Williams, W., Skeels, S., & Wu, S. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harp, S., & Mayer, R. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hynd, C. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. (1986a). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440–446.Google Scholar
  27. Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. (1986b). Prior knowledge activation in refutation and nonrefutation text. In J.A. Niles & R.V. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers (pp. 55–60). Chicago, IL: NRC.Google Scholar
  28. Hynd, C., Alvermann, D., & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers' conceptual change about projectile motion. Science Education, 81, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hynd, C., McWhorter, J., Phares, V., & Suttles, C. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.Google Scholar
  31. Maria, K. (2000). Conceptual change instruction: a social constructivist perspective. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maria, K., & Johnson, J. (1989). Correcting misconceptions: Effect of type of text. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 315749).Google Scholar
  33. Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 222–238.Google Scholar
  34. Marshall, N. (1989). Overcoming problems with incorrect prior knowledge: An instructional study. In S. McCormick and J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 323–330). Chicago, IL: NRC.Google Scholar
  35. Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165–197). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayer, D. (1995). How can we best use literature in teaching. Science and Children, 43, 16–19.Google Scholar
  38. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Penttinen, M., Anto, E., & Olkinuora, E. (2008). Constructing mental models during learning from science text: Eye tracking methodology meets conceptual change. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction (pp. 63–79). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palmer, D. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87, 663–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.) New York, NY: Viking. (Original work published 1975).Google Scholar
  43. Pinarbaşi, T., Canpolat, N., Bayrakçeken, S., & Geban, Ö. (2006). An investigation of effectiveness of conceptual change text-oriented instruction on students’ understanding of solution concepts. Research in Science Education, 36, 313–335. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-9003-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.Google Scholar
  45. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qian, G. (November, 1995). The role of epistemological beliefs and motivational goals in ethnically diverse high school students’ learning from science text. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  47. Rossman, G.B., & Yore, L.D. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal the generalized patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary reanalyses, case-to-case comparison, and metasyntheses of qualitative research studies. In M. C. Shelley II, L.D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education (pp. 575–601). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Stevens, R. (1999). Addressing preservice teachers’ conceptions of motivation. Teaching and Teaching Education, 15, 741–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Shanahan, C. (2004). Better textbooks, better readers and writers. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing Borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 370–382). Newark, DE: IRA.Google Scholar
  51. Skopeliti, I., & Vosniadou, S. (July, 2006). The influence of refutational text on children’s ideas about the earth. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  52. Skopeliti, I., & Vosniadou, S. (2007, August).The influence of refutational and categorical information on children’s scientific understanding. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and instruction, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  53. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton, (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar
  54. Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students’ understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tekkaya, C. (2003). Remediating high school students’ misconceptions concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and conceptual change text. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tippett, C.D. (2004). Conceptual change: The power of refutation text. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
  57. Tippett, C.D. (2009). Refutation text: Effective yet elusive. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  58. Tsai, C., & Chou, C. (2002). Diagnosing students’ alternative conceptions in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J., & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). Toronto, Canada: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. White, R.T., & Gunstone, R.F. (2008). The conceptual change approach and the teaching of science. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 619–628). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Google Scholar
  63. Yore, L. D., Craig, M., & Maguire, T. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4-8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Curriculum & InstructionUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations