Reading the own-side account elicited more valid elaborative inferences, relevant associations, consequences-for-present statements and evaluative comments, while the other-side account elicited more invalid inferences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Participants used more valid elaborative inferences, relevant associations, consequences-for-present statements, and evaluative comments when reading the own-side text. → Iordanou 2025 q3 i? Participants made more invalid elaborative inferences when reading the other-side text. → Iordanou 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Iordanou 2025¶

Iordanou, K., Fotiou, C., Manoli, A., & Zembylas, M. (2025). Examining myside bias on a controversial historical event after engagement in dialogic argumentation: Insights from a think aloud study. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102209

q3 · i? · causal · r1

GLMM results comparing reasoning between the two text-protocols in the think-aloud study. The article attributes the asymmetry to greater familiarity: the events of the invasion are discussed in Greek-Cypriot schools and at home, so students' knowledge was reflected in associations and valid inferences.

"participants used more valid elaborative inferences, relevant associations, statements referring to consequences for the present, and evaluative comments in the “own-side” text- protocol compared to the “other-side” text-protocol."

Iordanou 2025 (2)¶

Iordanou, K., Fotiou, C., Manoli, A., & Zembylas, M. (2025). Examining myside bias on a controversial historical event after engagement in dialogic argumentation: Insights from a think aloud study. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102209

q3 · i? · causal · r1

GLMM results on think-aloud code counts (Tables 1 and 2, Fig. 1) showing the reverse pattern for the other-side text-protocol: more invalid elaborative inferences and more other-side-supporting opinion statements than in the own-side protocol.

"In contrast, participants made more invalid elaborative inferences and more opinion statements supporting the other-side in the “other-side” compared to the “own-side” text-protocol (see Tables 1 and 2, and Fig. 1)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Critical Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Students made more evaluative comments after the dialogic argumentation intervention, but their evaluations still favored their own position — related
• Elementary students expressed significantly more opinion statements supporting the other-side when reading the other-side historical account than when reading their own-side account — related
• Cognitive processing differs by text type: participants engaged in more epistemic processing, meta-comprehension, and coherence-based processing when reading the other-side text than the own-side text — related