Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paraphrasing refutation text and knowledge form: examples from repairing relational database design misconceptions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This experimental study examined the effects of conceptual change-oriented refutation text (RT) on declarative knowledge and conceptual knowledge. Information Science undergraduates (N = 66) enrolled in two sections of a course with different instructors but the same syllabus were randomly assigned to one of four RT treatments that included read only vs. reading plus paraphrasing, with either set 1 or set 2 RTs, each RT set addressed five separate misconceptions. Pretest and posttest assessed the declarative and conceptual aspects of all ten misconceptions. For conceptual knowledge, pretest-to-posttest results show that reading and paraphrasing RTs is superior to only reading the RTs (ES = .40). Unexpectedly, conceptual knowledge improved for all misconceptions, both for the assigned RTs as well as those not assigned, thus RTs had a broad structural rather than a narrow attentional influence. However, declarative knowledge scores significantly and substantially decreased from pretest-to-posttest, indicating that the conceptual gains observed here came at the cost of declarative knowledge. Misconceptions are represented here as multiword chunks using a Pathfinder network approach, and conceptual improvement is explained as the effects of refutation text as a form of structural feedback acting on these chunks. Future research is needed to further consider the effects of addressing multiple misconceptions at once, and also on how RTs impact different kinds of learning outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agiande, D. U., Williams, J. J., Dunnamah, A. Y., & Tumba, D. P. (2015). Conceptual change theory as a teaching strategy in environmental education. European Scientific Journal, 11(35), 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al khawaldeh, S., & Al Olaimat, A. (2010). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to eleventh-grade students understanding of cellular respiration concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9185-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 242–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. J., Dewhurst, S. A., & Nash, R. A. (2012). Shared cognitive processes underlying past and future thinking: The impact of imagery and concurrent task demands on event specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andre, T., & Ding, P. (1991). Student misconceptions, declarative knowledge, stimulus conditions, and problem solving in basic electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(4), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(91)90011-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (Vol. xiii). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-98423-000.

  • Bensoussan, M., & Kreindler, I. (1990). Improving advanced reading comprehension in a foreign language: Summaries vs. short-answer questions. Journal of Research in Reading, 13(1), 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: An investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York: Routledge.

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B., & Marker, A. (2007). Generating topic headings during reading of screen-based text facilitates learning of structural knowledge and impairs learning of lower-level knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B., Wagner, D., & Roher-Murphy, L. C. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-9016-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=bttwENORfhgC.

  • Diakidoy, I.-A. N., Mouskounti, T., & Ioannides, C. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.1.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmadani, M., Mathews, M., & Mitrovic, A. (2012). Data-driven misconception discovery in constraint-based intelligent tutoring systems. Retrieved from https://Www.Lsl.Nie.Edu.Sg/Icce2012/Wp-Content/Uploads/2012/11/MAIN-Conference-E-BOOK.Pdf. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/7399.

  • Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/theory-of-cognitive-dissonance/oclc/921356.

  • Friend, R. (2002). Summing it up: Teaching summary writing to enhance science learning. The Science Teacher, 69(4), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Molina, H., Ullman, J. D., & Widom, J. (2009). Database systems: the complete book. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Hoyos, C. (2017). Analogy and abstraction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 672–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldwater, M. B., & Schalk, L. (2016). Relational categories as a bridge between cognitive and educational research. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 729–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B. (2003). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, E., Conejo, R., & Gálvez, J. (2010). A data-driven technique for misconception elicitation (pp. 243–254). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13470-8_23

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600277971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagaman, J. L., Casey, K. J., & Reid, R. (2012). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of young students. Remedial and Special Education, 33(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510364548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallett, D., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2010). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural knowledge when learning fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, C. H. (1940). An evaluation of certain popular science misconceptions. Science Education, 24(4), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730240409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. B. (2008). Models and analogies. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 299–307). London: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. New York: Routledge Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Gottdenker, J. (2005). Model building for conceptual change. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 15–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 20(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keleş, P. U., Çepni, S., Haşıloğlu, M. A., & Aydin, S. (2011). The effect of conceptual change texts on eliminating the misconceptions of K5 students’ alternative views about the birds. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Clariana, R. B., & Kim, Y. (2019). Automatic representation of knowledge structure: Enhancing learning through knowledge structure reflection in an online course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 105–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kletzien, S. B. (2009). Paraphrasing: An effective comprehension strategy. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.1.7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenke, D. M., & Auer, D. J. (2010). Database concepts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLellan, E. (1997). Reading to learn. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 277–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059001043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maziarz, M., Szpakowicz, S. & Piasecki, M. (2015). A procedural definition of multi-word lexical units. Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing, (pp. 427–435), Hissar, Bulgaria. Retrieved September 7–9, 2015 from https://aclweb.org/anthology/R15-1056.

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008819912213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, B. M., Adams, D., Durkin, K., Goguadze, G., Mayer, R. E., Rittle-Johnson, B., … van Velsen, M. (2012). To err is human, to explain and correct is divine: a study of interactive erroneous examples with middle school math students. In Ravenscroft A., Lindstaedt S., Kloos C.D., Hernández-Leo D. (eds.), 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills. EC-TEL 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7563 (pp. 222–235). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0_18.

  • Merrill, M. D., & Tennyson, R. D. (1978). Concept classification and classification errors as a function of relationships between examples and nonexamples. Improving Human Performance Quarterly, 7(4), 351–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntshalintshali, G. (2014). Instructional effects of refutation text on different types of knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA). Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/9374.

  • Park, S., Son, C., & Kim, M. (2011). Linear text vs. non-linear hypertext in handheld computers: Effects on declarative and structural knowledge, and learner motivation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 241–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radmacher, S. A., & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 113–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1976). Representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Representation of knowledge in memory (pp. 99–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarwar, G. S., & Trumpower, D. L. (2015). Effects of conceptual, procedural, and declarative reflection on students’ structural knowledge in physics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1984). Learning strategies curriculum: The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selinger, B. M. (1995). Summarizing text: Developmental students demonstrate a successful method. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(2), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H., Wyer, R. S., & Cai, F. (2012). The generalization of deliberative and automatic behavior: The role of procedural knowledge and affective reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 819–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K.A. & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl, R. & Hamiltonn (Ed.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press. Retrieved from https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/283675d6825e1f27a8d0656e7164c9d58/clachapelle.

  • Suraweera, P., & Mitrovic, A. (2002). KERMIT: A constraint-based tutor for database modeling (pp. 377–387). Berlin: Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_41

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., & Merrill, M. D. (1972). Exemplar and nonexampler variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumpower, D. L., & Sarwar, G. S. (2010). Effectiveness of structural feedback provided by Pathfinder networks. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DataState, LLC, Yardley, PA, USA

    General M. Ntshalintshali

  2. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Roy B. Clariana

Authors
  1. General M. Ntshalintshali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roy B. Clariana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roy B. Clariana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, this research was conducted without external funding.

Ethical approval

All participation was voluntary, anonymous, and was conducted under an approved institutional IRB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is a report of the Ntshalintshali’s dissertation, Ph.D. graduation May 2014, Clariana was the student’s dissertation chair.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ntshalintshali, G.M., Clariana, R.B. Paraphrasing refutation text and knowledge form: examples from repairing relational database design misconceptions. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2165–2183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09758-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09758-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation