Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 509–518 | Cite as

Using refutational text in mathematics education

  • Stephanie Lem
  • Patrick Onghena
  • Lieven Verschaffel
  • Wim Van Dooren
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Refutational text is one of the many instructional techniques that have been proposed to be used in education as a way to achieve effective learning. The aim of refutational text is to transform misconceptions into conceptions that are in line with current scientific concepts. This is done by explicitly stating a misconception, refuting it, and providing a correct conception. It has been applied in various curricular domains, and seems to be effective in inducing cognitive conflicts in learners and remediating misconceptions. In this article we first discuss the design principles and the theoretical underpinnings of refutational text. Then we briefly review the existing empirical research, both in general and specifically within the domain of mathematics education. Next, we zoom in on a series of studies we conducted in which refutational text was used to improve the interpretation of box plots. In these studies we focused on one very persistent misinterpretation of box plots, the area misinterpretation, which we tried to remediate using refutational text. We found that students who were exposed to refutational text scored significantly better on a box plot interpretation test than students being exposed to an instructional text in which no misconceptions were explicitly mentioned or refuted. We end with a discussion of theoretical and methodological issues for future research and propose recommendations for mathematics educators.

Keywords

Mathematics education Refutational text Instructional design Conceptual change Misconceptions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Stephanie Lem holds a post-doctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO). This research was partially supported by grant GOA/12/010 ‘Number sense: Analysis and Improvement’ of the KU Leuven.

References

  1. Christou, K. (2012). Helping students remedy the phenomenal sign bias: the case of a refutational lecture. In C. Prachalias (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Education (pp. 643–648). Samos.Google Scholar
  2. Craeghs, B. (2012). Box plot, quartile plot en offset quartile plot: Verschillende externe representaties, dezelfde interpretatiemoeilijkheden? [Box plot, quartile plot and offset quartile plot: Different representations, the same interpretation difficulties?]. Unpublished Master Thesis, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
  3. Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193858.
  4. Forman, E., & Cazdan, C. (1998). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education. The cognitive value of peer interaction. In D. Faulkner, K. Littleton & R. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning relationships in the classroom (pp. 189–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grayson, D. (1996). Improving science and mathematics learning by concept substitution. In D. Treagust & R. Duit (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 152–161). New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1992). Promoting conceptual change in science. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 117–159.Google Scholar
  8. Heemsoth, T., & Heinze, A. (2014). The impact of incorrect examples on learning fractions: A field experiment with 6th grade students. Instructional Science, 42(4), 639–657. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9302-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7–8), 699–714. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00010-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. In C.-A. S. Staël Von Holstein (Ed.), The concept of probability in psychological experiments (pp. 25–48). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-2288-0_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. (2014). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences (pp. 353–378). Cambridge: MIT university press.Google Scholar
  12. Kendeou, P., Walsh, E. K., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51(5–6), 374–397. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.913961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lem, S., Baert, K., Ceulemans, E., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2016). Refutational text and multiple external representations as a method to improve the interpretation of box plots. (Manuscript Submitted for Publication).Google Scholar
  14. Lem, S., Kempen, G., Ceulemans, E., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2014). Combining multiple external representations and refutational text: an intervention on learning to interpret box plots. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 909–926. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9604-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lem, S., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2013). The heuristic interpretation of box plots. Learning and Instruction, 26(3), 22–35. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lem, S., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2016). The power of refutational text: changing intuitions about the interpretation of box plots. European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1007/s10212-016-0320-y.Google Scholar
  17. Méheut, M. (2012). Preconceptions and learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2662–2664). Boston: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6.Google Scholar
  18. Miszaniec, J.-M. (2016). Designing effective lessons on probability: A pilot study focused on the illusion of linearity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation; Concordia University.Google Scholar
  19. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schneider, M., Vamvakoussi, X., & Van Dooren, W. (2012). Conceptual Change. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 735–738). London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_352.Google Scholar
  21. Sinatra, G., & Broughton, S. (2011a). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sinatra, G., & Broughton, S. (2011b). Understanding the refutation text effect in conceptual change research: Multiple perspectives. In W. Van Dooren (Ed.), The role of refutational texts in achieving conceptual change. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/teal_facpub/296/.
  23. Thompson, V. A. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–195). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tippett, 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. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9203-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vamvakoussi, X., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2012). Naturally biased? In search for reaction time evidence for a natural number bias in adults. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 344–355. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vamvakoussi, X., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). Brief Report. Educated adults are still affected by intuitions about the effect of arithmetical operations: evidence from a reaction-time study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 323–330. doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9432-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 335–351. doi: 10.1002/acp.1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Dooren, W., & Inglis, M. (2015). Inhibitory control in mathematical thinking, learning and problem solving: a survey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(5), 713–721. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0715-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230. doi: 10.1080/0950069980201004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vosniadou, S., & Vamvakoussi, X. (2006). Examining mathematics learning from a conceptual change point of view: Implications for the design of learning environments. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Fifteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 55–70). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Yilmaz, D., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2011). The comparative effects of prediction/discussion-based learning cycle, conceptual change text, and traditional instructions on student understanding of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 607–628. doi: 10.1080/09500691003657758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Lem
    • 1
  • Patrick Onghena
    • 2
  • Lieven Verschaffel
    • 1
  • Wim Van Dooren
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Methodology of Educational Sciences Research GroupKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options