Misconceptions impair comprehension of a standard text, and both a refutation text and a think sheet compensate for this detrimental effect¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In a randomized experiment, the negative effect of misconceptions on comprehension in the control condition was compensated when learners read a refutation text or completed a think sheet, with no difference between the two methods. → Anja Prinz 2021 q3 i? In the control group, misconceptions had a marginally significant negative effect on comprehension. → Anja Prinz 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Anja Prinz 2021¶

Anja Prinz, Stefanie Golke, Jörg Wittwer. (2021). Counteracting detrimental effects of misconceptions on learning and metacomprehension accuracy: The utility of refutation texts and think sheets. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09535-8

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Regression analysis in the immediate session of the randomized between-subjects experiment (N = 92) testing misconceptions as predictor and instructional method as multicategorical moderator. The omnibus interaction was marginally significant, with "∆R 2 = .06, F(2, 86) = 3.03, p = .053"; no effect size beyond ΔR² was printed.

"The analysis on comprehension revealed that there was a marginally significant overall interaction between misconceptions and instructional method, ∆R 2 = .06, F(2, 86) = 3.03, p = .053."

Anja Prinz 2021 (2)¶

Anja Prinz, Stefanie Golke, Jörg Wittwer. (2021). Counteracting detrimental effects of misconceptions on learning and metacomprehension accuracy: The utility of refutation texts and think sheets. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09535-8

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Conditional effect in the same regression analysis for the control group reading the standard text with a misconception list: "b = −0.40, SE = 0.20, t(91) = −1.99, p = .050". Effects in the refutation-text and think-sheet groups were not significant.

"In the control group, misconceptions had a marginally significant negative effect on comprehension, b = −0.40, SE = 0.20, t(91) = −1.99, p = .050."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Learners with more misconceptions made more overconfident comprehension predictions after a standard text with a misconception list, an association not seen with refutation texts or think sheets — related
• All three instructional methods reduced misconceptions, and comprehension and transfer effects were stable at delayed testing one week later — related
• Instruction that confronts science misconceptions (conceptual-conflict interventions, refutation text) produces conceptual change more often than standard exposition — a broader claim this one bears on
• Completing a think sheet yields higher response-confidence accuracy than reading a refutation text or a standard text with a misconception list — related
• Misconceptions did not impair transfer in the strong control condition, but learners with more misconceptions in the think-sheet group transferred better — related
• Misconceptions decreased over time in all three instructional methods, with no difference between methods
• Completing the think sheet more accurately was associated with higher comprehension, transfer, and regulation decision adequacy — related
• Think sheets counteracted the positive effect of misconceptions on transfer in the control group, though the overall interaction only approached significance — related
• Refutation texts produce greater conceptual change about multimedia-learning misconceptions than standard texts in student teachers — related
• Readers with misconceptions engage in more conceptual change strategies than readers without misconceptions, but only when reading a refutation text — related
• Under reading-only, students with more misconceptions achieved better comprehension, but completing a think sheet removed this effect of misconceptions on comprehension — reports the opposite
• Misconceptions were addressed in nine reviewed articles, all in science, via augmented activation, refutation texts, or analogical reasoning, though one study found activating inaccurate information may not be detrimental — related