Reliance on the pattern-matching misconception dropped more in the experimental group than in the control group but persisted for the majority of students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the experimental group, use of the pattern-matching misconception for maximum stock levels fell from 90% on the pretest to 59% on the posttest (a 31% drop), versus a 9% drop in controls; the majority still relied on it. → Reichert et al. 2015

Evidence¶

Reichert et al. 2015¶

Collin Reichert, Cinzia Cervato, Dale Niederhauser, and Michael D. Larsen. (2015). Understanding Atmospheric Carbon Budgets: Teaching Students Conservation of Mass. Journal of Geoscience Education 63, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-055.1

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive comparison of misconception use on pretest and final (Fig. 6), with experimental drops of 31% (E-Max) and 23% (E-Min) versus control drops of 9% and 4%. The authors offer the differential decrease as an interpretation, hypothesizing greater cognitive dissonance, and note it is not directly tested.

"Of the students in the experimental group, 90% used the pattern-matching misconception for identifying maximum stock levels on the pretest, while only 59% used it on the posttest, represented by a drop of 31% on the E-Max question (Fig. 6)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The experimental group outperformed controls on only one of five budget questions — identifying maximum stock levels from an inflow–outflow graph — with no significant advantage on the others — related