Advertisement

FROM COVERT PROCESSES TO OVERT OUTCOMES OF REFUTATION TEXT READING: THE INTERPLAY OF SCIENCE TEXT STRUCTURE AND WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY THROUGH EYE FIXATIONS

  • Nicola Ariasi
  • Lucia MasonEmail author
Article

ABSTRACT

This study extends current research on the refutation text effect by investigating it in learners with different levels of working memory capacity. The purpose is to outline the link between online processes (revealed by eye fixation indices) and off-line outcomes in these learners. In science education, unlike a standard text, a refutation text acknowledges readers’ alternative conceptions about a topic, refutes them, and presents scientific conceptions as viable alternatives. Lower and higher memory span university students with alternative conceptions about the topic read either a refutation or a non-refutation text about tides. Off-line measures of learning revealed that both groups of refutation text readers attained higher knowledge gains. During the reading process, refutation text readers fixated for longer on the refutation segments while reading the parts presenting the scientific information (look-froms). Non-refutation text readers looked back to the informational parts for longer. Look-froms (positively) and reading time (negatively) predicted learning from refutation text, indicating that the quality, not quantity, of reading was related to it. In contrast, learning from non-refutation text was predicted only by working memory capacity. The refutation effect is discussed and educational implications are drawn.

KEY WORDS

eye movements reading comprehension refutation text science text working memory capacity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Alloway, T. P., Banner, G. E. & Smith, P. (2010). Working memory and cognitive style in adolescents’ attainment. British Journal of Education Psychology, 80, 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariasi, N. & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39, 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M. & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: An investigation of attention allocation. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton, C. & Daneman, M. (2007). Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Psychology, 28, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambliss, M. J. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J. Leön & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 51–72). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical text of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cromley, J. G. (2009). Reading achievement and science proficiency: International comparisons from the Programme on International Student Assessment. Reading Psychology, 30, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E. & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daneman, M. & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diakidoy, I. N., Mouskounti, T. & Ioannides, C. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 22–38.Google Scholar
  16. Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Defrancesco, S. & Oss, M. (2006). Scoprire la fisica quotidiana [Discovering everyday physics] Trento. Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  18. Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P. & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, E. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research, 79, 202–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R. & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.Google Scholar
  21. Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A. & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. C. Graeeser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V. & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Härtel, H. (2000). The tides—A neglected topic. Physics Education, 35, 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hynd, C. (1998). Conceptual change in a high school physics class. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 27–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Hynd, C. (2001). Refutational text and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hynd, C., Qian, G., Ridgeway, V. & Pickle, M. (1991). Promoting conceptual change with science texts and discussion. Journal of Reading, 34, 596–601.Google Scholar
  27. Hyönä, J. & Lorch, R. F. (2004). Effects of topic headings on text processing: Evidence from adult readers’ eye fixation patterns. Learning and Instruction, 14, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyönä, J. & Nurminen, A.-M. (2006). Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 31–50.Google Scholar
  29. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F. & Kaakinen, J. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44–55.Google Scholar
  30. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaakinen, J., Hyönä, J. & Keenan, J. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixation in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 447–457.Google Scholar
  33. Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R. & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 3, 1–19.Google Scholar
  34. Kendeou, P. & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kendeou, P. & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kerlinger, F. N. & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Forth Worth: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  37. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lorch, R. F. & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 165–196). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C. & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Penttinen, M., Anto, E. & Olkinuora, E. (2008). Problems of constructing mental models during learning from science text. Eye tracking methodology meets conceptual change. In Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 63–79). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy, P. K. (2001). What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students’ and experts’ conceptions of persuasiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  48. Pazzaglia, F., Palladino, P. & De Beni, R. (2000). Presentazione di uno strumento per la valutazione della memoria di lavoro verbale e sua relazione con i disturbi della comprensione [An instrument for the assessment of verbal working memory and of its relation with comprehension difficulties]. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 3, 465–486.Google Scholar
  49. Qian, G. & Pan, J. (2002). A comparison of epistemological beliefs and learning from science text between American and Chinese high school students. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 365–385). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.Google Scholar
  52. She, H.-C. & Chen, Y.-Z. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computers & Education, 53, 1297–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sinatra, G. M. & Broughton, S. W. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393.Google Scholar
  54. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutational text in science education. A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsai, M.-J., Hou, H.-T., Lai, M.-L., Liu, W.-Y. & Yang, F.-Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van den Broek, P. W. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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, 335–351. doi: 10.1002/acp.1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Gog, T. & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Viiri, J. (1999). Tides in textbooks, expert teachers’ ideas and students’ understanding. In M. Komorek et al. (Eds.), Research in science education: Past, present and future. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  61. Viiri, J. (2000). Students’ understanding of tides. Physics Education, 35, 100–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. vonHecker, U. & Dutke, S. (2004). Integrative social perception: Individuals low in working memory benefit more from external representations. Social Cognition, 22, 336–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 377–394). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations