Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence

•High-confidence misconceptions are resistant to change.•We compared effects of standard- and refutation texts on hypercorrection.•Reading refutation texts improved correction of high-confidence misconceptions.•Refutation texts did not improve correction of low-confidence misconceptions. Misconcepti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Contemporary educational psychology 2015-07, Vol.42, p.39-48
Hauptverfasser: van Loon, Mariëtte H., Dunlosky, John, van Gog, Tamara, van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G., de Bruin, Anique B.H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 48
container_issue
container_start_page 39
container_title Contemporary educational psychology
container_volume 42
creator van Loon, Mariëtte H.
Dunlosky, John
van Gog, Tamara
van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.
de Bruin, Anique B.H.
description •High-confidence misconceptions are resistant to change.•We compared effects of standard- and refutation texts on hypercorrection.•Reading refutation texts improved correction of high-confidence misconceptions.•Refutation texts did not improve correction of low-confidence misconceptions. Misconceptions about science are often not corrected during study when they are held with high confidence. However, when corrective feedback co-activates a misconception together with the correct conception, this feedback may surprise the learner and draw attention, especially when the misconceptions are held with high confidence. Therefore, high-confidence misconceptions might be more likely to be corrected than low-confidence misconceptions. The present study investigates whether this hypercorrection effect occurs when students read science texts. Effects of two text formats were compared: Standard texts that presented factual information, and refutation texts that explicitly addressed misconceptions and refuted them before presenting factual information. Eighth grade adolescents (N = 114) took a pre-reading test that included 16 common misconceptions about science concepts, rated their confidence in correctness of their response to the pre-reading questions, read 16 texts about the science concepts, and finally took a post-test which included both true/false and open-ended test questions. Analyses of post-test responses show that reading refutation texts causes hypercorrection: Learners more often corrected high-confidence misconceptions after reading refutation texts than after reading standard texts, whereas low-confidence misconceptions did not benefit from reading refutation texts. These outcomes suggest that people are more surprised when they find out a confidently held misconception is incorrect, which may encourage them to pay more attention to the feedback and the refutation. Moreover, correction of high-confidence misconceptions was more apparent on the true/false test responses than on the open-ended test, suggesting that additional interventions may be needed to improve learners' accommodation of the correct information.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1699488541</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0361476X15000235</els_id><sourcerecordid>3762000671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-59d9e08b664d549e8b39bf7364ad5924d64cb7aae8b062ce55c3431d2271fb173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LxDAQhoMouK7-BQl4bk2aNG1uivgFC4IoeIttMrUpu01Nsur-e1u6nj3NYZ73HeZB6JySlBIqLrtUgxnCTrdpRmieEp4Swg7QghJJkoyV_BAtCBM04YV4O0YnIXSEUMolW6D3Z2i2sYrW9QHbHgdtodeAI_zEgNdQGRwdbncDeO28Bz2R2DV4Y4N2IznM0RbWBn_b2OLWfrR4XDXWTE2n6Kip1gHO9nOJXu9uX24ektXT_ePN9SrRrCxjkksjgZS1ENzkXEJZM1k3BRO8MrnMuBFc10VVjQsiMg15rhln1GRZQZuaFmyJLubewbvPLYSoOrf1_XhSUSElL8uc05ESM6W9C8FDowZvN5XfKUrUZFN16s-mmmwqwtVocwxezUEYf_iy4NXelLGTFGWc_a_iF6Vfgt0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1699488541</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>van Loon, Mariëtte H. ; Dunlosky, John ; van Gog, Tamara ; van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G. ; de Bruin, Anique B.H.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Loon, Mariëtte H. ; Dunlosky, John ; van Gog, Tamara ; van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G. ; de Bruin, Anique B.H.</creatorcontrib><description>•High-confidence misconceptions are resistant to change.•We compared effects of standard- and refutation texts on hypercorrection.•Reading refutation texts improved correction of high-confidence misconceptions.•Refutation texts did not improve correction of low-confidence misconceptions. Misconceptions about science are often not corrected during study when they are held with high confidence. However, when corrective feedback co-activates a misconception together with the correct conception, this feedback may surprise the learner and draw attention, especially when the misconceptions are held with high confidence. Therefore, high-confidence misconceptions might be more likely to be corrected than low-confidence misconceptions. The present study investigates whether this hypercorrection effect occurs when students read science texts. Effects of two text formats were compared: Standard texts that presented factual information, and refutation texts that explicitly addressed misconceptions and refuted them before presenting factual information. Eighth grade adolescents (N = 114) took a pre-reading test that included 16 common misconceptions about science concepts, rated their confidence in correctness of their response to the pre-reading questions, read 16 texts about the science concepts, and finally took a post-test which included both true/false and open-ended test questions. Analyses of post-test responses show that reading refutation texts causes hypercorrection: Learners more often corrected high-confidence misconceptions after reading refutation texts than after reading standard texts, whereas low-confidence misconceptions did not benefit from reading refutation texts. These outcomes suggest that people are more surprised when they find out a confidently held misconception is incorrect, which may encourage them to pay more attention to the feedback and the refutation. Moreover, correction of high-confidence misconceptions was more apparent on the true/false test responses than on the open-ended test, suggesting that additional interventions may be needed to improve learners' accommodation of the correct information.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-476X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1090-2384</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Diego: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescence ; Comparative studies ; Confidence ; Correction ; Feedback ; Feedback (Response) ; Grade 8 ; Misconceptions ; Perceptions ; Reading comprehension ; Reading Tests ; Science education ; Student Improvement</subject><ispartof>Contemporary educational psychology, 2015-07, Vol.42, p.39-48</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-59d9e08b664d549e8b39bf7364ad5924d64cb7aae8b062ce55c3431d2271fb173</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-59d9e08b664d549e8b39bf7364ad5924d64cb7aae8b062ce55c3431d2271fb173</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27913,27914,30988,45984</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Loon, Mariëtte H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunlosky, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Gog, Tamara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Bruin, Anique B.H.</creatorcontrib><title>Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence</title><title>Contemporary educational psychology</title><description>•High-confidence misconceptions are resistant to change.•We compared effects of standard- and refutation texts on hypercorrection.•Reading refutation texts improved correction of high-confidence misconceptions.•Refutation texts did not improve correction of low-confidence misconceptions. Misconceptions about science are often not corrected during study when they are held with high confidence. However, when corrective feedback co-activates a misconception together with the correct conception, this feedback may surprise the learner and draw attention, especially when the misconceptions are held with high confidence. Therefore, high-confidence misconceptions might be more likely to be corrected than low-confidence misconceptions. The present study investigates whether this hypercorrection effect occurs when students read science texts. Effects of two text formats were compared: Standard texts that presented factual information, and refutation texts that explicitly addressed misconceptions and refuted them before presenting factual information. Eighth grade adolescents (N = 114) took a pre-reading test that included 16 common misconceptions about science concepts, rated their confidence in correctness of their response to the pre-reading questions, read 16 texts about the science concepts, and finally took a post-test which included both true/false and open-ended test questions. Analyses of post-test responses show that reading refutation texts causes hypercorrection: Learners more often corrected high-confidence misconceptions after reading refutation texts than after reading standard texts, whereas low-confidence misconceptions did not benefit from reading refutation texts. These outcomes suggest that people are more surprised when they find out a confidently held misconception is incorrect, which may encourage them to pay more attention to the feedback and the refutation. Moreover, correction of high-confidence misconceptions was more apparent on the true/false test responses than on the open-ended test, suggesting that additional interventions may be needed to improve learners' accommodation of the correct information.</description><subject>Adolescence</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>Correction</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Feedback (Response)</subject><subject>Grade 8</subject><subject>Misconceptions</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Reading comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Tests</subject><subject>Science education</subject><subject>Student Improvement</subject><issn>0361-476X</issn><issn>1090-2384</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LxDAQhoMouK7-BQl4bk2aNG1uivgFC4IoeIttMrUpu01Nsur-e1u6nj3NYZ73HeZB6JySlBIqLrtUgxnCTrdpRmieEp4Swg7QghJJkoyV_BAtCBM04YV4O0YnIXSEUMolW6D3Z2i2sYrW9QHbHgdtodeAI_zEgNdQGRwdbncDeO28Bz2R2DV4Y4N2IznM0RbWBn_b2OLWfrR4XDXWTE2n6Kip1gHO9nOJXu9uX24ektXT_ePN9SrRrCxjkksjgZS1ENzkXEJZM1k3BRO8MrnMuBFc10VVjQsiMg15rhln1GRZQZuaFmyJLubewbvPLYSoOrf1_XhSUSElL8uc05ESM6W9C8FDowZvN5XfKUrUZFN16s-mmmwqwtVocwxezUEYf_iy4NXelLGTFGWc_a_iF6Vfgt0</recordid><startdate>201507</startdate><enddate>201507</enddate><creator>van Loon, Mariëtte H.</creator><creator>Dunlosky, John</creator><creator>van Gog, Tamara</creator><creator>van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.</creator><creator>de Bruin, Anique B.H.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201507</creationdate><title>Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence</title><author>van Loon, Mariëtte H. ; Dunlosky, John ; van Gog, Tamara ; van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G. ; de Bruin, Anique B.H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-59d9e08b664d549e8b39bf7364ad5924d64cb7aae8b062ce55c3431d2271fb173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescence</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>Correction</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Feedback (Response)</topic><topic>Grade 8</topic><topic>Misconceptions</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Reading comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Tests</topic><topic>Science education</topic><topic>Student Improvement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Loon, Mariëtte H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunlosky, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Gog, Tamara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Bruin, Anique B.H.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Contemporary educational psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Loon, Mariëtte H.</au><au>Dunlosky, John</au><au>van Gog, Tamara</au><au>van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.</au><au>de Bruin, Anique B.H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence</atitle><jtitle>Contemporary educational psychology</jtitle><date>2015-07</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>42</volume><spage>39</spage><epage>48</epage><pages>39-48</pages><issn>0361-476X</issn><eissn>1090-2384</eissn><abstract>•High-confidence misconceptions are resistant to change.•We compared effects of standard- and refutation texts on hypercorrection.•Reading refutation texts improved correction of high-confidence misconceptions.•Refutation texts did not improve correction of low-confidence misconceptions. Misconceptions about science are often not corrected during study when they are held with high confidence. However, when corrective feedback co-activates a misconception together with the correct conception, this feedback may surprise the learner and draw attention, especially when the misconceptions are held with high confidence. Therefore, high-confidence misconceptions might be more likely to be corrected than low-confidence misconceptions. The present study investigates whether this hypercorrection effect occurs when students read science texts. Effects of two text formats were compared: Standard texts that presented factual information, and refutation texts that explicitly addressed misconceptions and refuted them before presenting factual information. Eighth grade adolescents (N = 114) took a pre-reading test that included 16 common misconceptions about science concepts, rated their confidence in correctness of their response to the pre-reading questions, read 16 texts about the science concepts, and finally took a post-test which included both true/false and open-ended test questions. Analyses of post-test responses show that reading refutation texts causes hypercorrection: Learners more often corrected high-confidence misconceptions after reading refutation texts than after reading standard texts, whereas low-confidence misconceptions did not benefit from reading refutation texts. These outcomes suggest that people are more surprised when they find out a confidently held misconception is incorrect, which may encourage them to pay more attention to the feedback and the refutation. Moreover, correction of high-confidence misconceptions was more apparent on the true/false test responses than on the open-ended test, suggesting that additional interventions may be needed to improve learners' accommodation of the correct information.</abstract><cop>San Diego</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-476X
ispartof Contemporary educational psychology, 2015-07, Vol.42, p.39-48
issn 0361-476X
1090-2384
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1699488541
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Adolescence
Comparative studies
Confidence
Correction
Feedback
Feedback (Response)
Grade 8
Misconceptions
Perceptions
Reading comprehension
Reading Tests
Science education
Student Improvement
title Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T08%3A42%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Refutations%20in%20science%20texts%20lead%20to%20hypercorrection%20of%20misconceptions%20held%20with%20high%20confidence&rft.jtitle=Contemporary%20educational%20psychology&rft.au=van%20Loon,%20Mari%C3%ABtte%20H.&rft.date=2015-07&rft.volume=42&rft.spage=39&rft.epage=48&rft.pages=39-48&rft.issn=0361-476X&rft.eissn=1090-2384&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3762000671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1699488541&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0361476X15000235&rfr_iscdi=true