Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 33–46 | Cite as

Knowledge revision through the lenses of the three-pronged approach

  • Panayiota KendeouEmail author
  • Reese Butterfuss
  • Jasmine Kim
  • Martin Van Boekel
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In the present study, we employed the three-pronged approach to determine the actual cognitive processes theorized in knowledge revision. First, the Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework was identified as the guiding theory. Second, think-aloud analysis highlighted at which points in refutation texts readers detected discrepancies between their incorrect, commonsense beliefs and the correct beliefs, and the exact processes with which they dealt with these discrepancies—successfully or unsuccessfully, as indicated by posttest scores. Third, corroborating reading-time data and posttest data demonstrated that the structure of the refutation texts facilitated the coactivation and integration of the explanation with the commonsense belief, resulting in knowledge revision. Finally, an analysis directly connected the processes identified during think-aloud to sentence reading times. These findings systematically identify the cognitive processes theorized during knowledge revision and, in doing so, provide evidence for the conditions for revision outlined in the KReC framework.

Keywords

Knowledge revision Refutation texts Three-pronged approach Think-aloud Cognitive processes 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jean-Baptiste Quillien and Isabella Albright for their assistance with data collection and coding. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the Guy Bond Endowed Chair in Reading.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P. (2002). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 87–103). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(4), 197–202.Google Scholar
  4. Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 97–102.Google Scholar
  5. Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39(5), 581–601.Google Scholar
  6. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package-lme4 Google Scholar
  8. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 206–219.Google Scholar
  9. Braasch, J. L. G., Goldman, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2013). The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 561–578.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.Google Scholar
  12. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  15. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563.Google Scholar
  17. Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51(1/2), 26–49.Google Scholar
  18. Coté, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children’s think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. diSessa, A. A. (2008). Can students re-invent fundamental scientific principles? Evaluating the promise of new-media literacies. In T. Willoughby & E. Wood (Eds.), Children’s learning in a digital world (pp. 218–248). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109–128.Google Scholar
  21. Ecker, U. K., Hogan, J. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 185–192.Google Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993–1002.Google Scholar
  24. Fletcher, C. R. (1986). Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 43–58.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 316–344.Google Scholar
  26. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91(1), 1–67.Google Scholar
  27. Graesser, A. C., Swamer, S. S., & Hu, X. (1997). Quantitative discourse psychology. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 229–263.Google Scholar
  28. Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  29. 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(2), 117–159.Google Scholar
  30. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). ‘Schema abstraction’ in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93(4), 411–428.Google Scholar
  31. Hynd, C. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7/8), 699–714.Google Scholar
  32. Hynd, C., Alvermann, D., & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  33. Hynd, C., & Guzzetti, B. J. (1998). When knowledge contradicts intuition: Conceptual change. In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 139–164). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes, 51(1/2), 7–25.Google Scholar
  35. Kendeou, P. (2014). Validation and comprehension: An integrated overview. Discourse Processes, 51(1/2), 189–200.Google Scholar
  36. Kendeou, P., & Butterfuss, R., Van Boekel, M., & O’Brien, E. J. (2017). Integrating relational reasoning and knowledge revision during reading. Educational Psychology Review, 1-13Google Scholar
  37. Kendeou, P., Muis, K., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383.Google Scholar
  38. Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Theories of text processing: A view from the top-down. In M. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd, pp. 7–21). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Kendeou, P., Smith, E., & O’Brien, E. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 854–865.Google Scholar
  41. 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(7), 1567–1577.Google Scholar
  42. Kendeou, P., Walsh, E., Smith, E., & O’Brien, E. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51(5/6), 374–397.Google Scholar
  43. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.Google Scholar
  44. Leon, J., & Perez, O. (2001). The influence of prior knowledge on time course of clinical diagnosis inferences: A comparison of experts and novices. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 187–213.Google Scholar
  45. Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222.Google Scholar
  46. Lombardi, D., Danielson, R. W., & Young, N. (2016). A plausible connection: Models examining the relations between evaluation, plausibility, and the refutation text effect. Learning & Instruction, 44, 74–86.Google Scholar
  47. Magliano, J., Larson, A., Higgs, K., & Loschky, L. (2016). The role of linguistic and grounded systems in generating inferences while processing visual narratives. Memory & Cognition, 44(2), 207–219. Google Scholar
  48. Magliano, J. P., Baggett, W. B., Johnson, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1993). The time course of generating causal antecedent and causal consequence inferences. Discourse Processes, 16(1/2), 35–53.Google Scholar
  49. Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 20(3), 193–232.Google Scholar
  50. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition & Instruction, 21, 251–283.Google Scholar
  51. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.Google Scholar
  52. Mason, L., Baldi, R., Di Ronco, S., Scrimin, S., Danielson, R. W., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). Textual and graphical refutations: Effects on conceptual change learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 275–288.Google Scholar
  53. McCrudden, M. T., & Kendeou, P. (2014). Exploring the link between cognitive processes and learning from refutational text. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 116–140.Google Scholar
  54. McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5), 494–513.Google Scholar
  55. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.Google Scholar
  56. Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2/3), 131–157.Google Scholar
  57. O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Gueraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 979–991.Google Scholar
  58. O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Ohlsson, S. (2009). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44, 20–40.Google Scholar
  60. Olson, G., Duffy, S., & Mack, R. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real time comprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras (Ed.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Olson, G. M., Mack, R. L., & Duffy, S. A. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre. Poetics, 10(2/3), 283–315.Google Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. Potvin, P. & Cyr, G. (2017). Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1121–1142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21396 Google Scholar
  64. Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Kohlhepp, K., & Ryskin, R. A. (2014). Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Memory & Cognition, 42, 11–26.Google Scholar
  65. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 2019–2032.Google Scholar
  66. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  67. Rapp, D. N., & Mensink, M. C. (2011). Focusing effects from online and offline reading tasks. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 141–164). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108.Google Scholar
  69. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.Google Scholar
  70. Richter, T. (2006). What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analyzing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models. Discourse Processes, 41, 221–250.Google Scholar
  71. Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337–352.Google Scholar
  72. Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52, 148–166.Google Scholar
  73. Schooler, J. W. (2011). Introspecting in the Spirit of William James: Comment on Fox, Ericsson, and Best (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 345–350.Google Scholar
  74. Shtulman, A., & Harrington, K. (2016). Tensions between science and intuition across the lifespan. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 118–137.Google Scholar
  75. Sinatra, G., & Broughton, S. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393.Google Scholar
  76. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 361–366.Google Scholar
  78. Sundermeier, B. A., van den Broek, P., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Causal coherence and the availability of locations and objects during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 33(3), 462–470.Google Scholar
  79. Thagard, P. (2008). Explanatory coherence. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 471–513). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951–970.Google Scholar
  81. Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21(3), 255–287.Google Scholar
  82. Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16(1/2), 3–34.Google Scholar
  83. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 612–630.Google Scholar
  84. Trevors, G. J., Kendeou, P., & Butterfuss, R. (2017). Emotion processes in knowledge revision. Discourse Processes, 54(5/6), 406–426. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1312201 Google Scholar
  85. Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Winne, P. H. (2016). Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: A potential account for the backfire effect. Discourse Processes, 53, 339–370.Google Scholar
  86. Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K., O’Brien, E. J., & Kendeou, P. (2017). Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Memory & Cognition, 45, 168–181.Google Scholar
  87. 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.Google Scholar
  88. van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2008). Cognitive processes during reading: Implications for the use of multimedia to foster reading comprehension. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 57–73). New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  89. van den Broek, P. W., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes 54(5/6), 360–372.Google Scholar
  90. 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 high confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 39–48.Google Scholar
  91. Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  92. Walsh, E., Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2015, July). The long-term benefit of refutation text on knowledge revision: Not just a testing effect. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  93. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289–327.Google Scholar
  94. Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. (2004). Updating situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 283–288.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panayiota Kendeou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reese Butterfuss
    • 1
  • Jasmine Kim
    • 1
  • Martin Van Boekel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options