Refutation texts produce greater conceptual change about multimedia-learning misconceptions than standard texts in student teachers¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i2 Participants in the refutation-texts conditions (with and without concessions) showed greater conceptual change than participants in the standard-texts condition. → Anja Prinz 2022
Evidence¶
Anja Prinz 2022¶
Anja Prinz, Julia Kollmer, Lisa Flick, Alexander Renkl, Alexander Eitel. (2022). Refuting student teachers' misconceptions about multimedia learning. Instructional Science, 50, 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09568-z
q2 · i2 · causal · r2
Planned orthogonal contrast in the randomized experiment (N = 96, 32 per condition) comparing both refutation-text conditions against standard texts on the conceptual-change score. The contrast was significant: "t(93) = 2.36, p = 0.020, η2 = 0.06", a medium effect by the article's thresholds.
"the first contrast showed that participants in the refutation-texts conditions showed greater conceptual change than the participants in the standard-texts condition, t(93) = 2.36, p = 0.020, η2 = 0.06"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Refutation texts did not promote beneficial selection of multimedia material by student teachers — related
- Adding concessive statements to refutation texts yields no added benefit for conceptual change about multimedia-learning misconceptions — 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
- Misconceptions impair comprehension of a standard text, and both a refutation text and a think sheet compensate for this detrimental effect — related
- 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
- Readers with misconceptions engage in more conceptual change strategies than readers without misconceptions, but only when reading a refutation text — related
- Completing a think sheet yields higher response-confidence accuracy than reading a refutation text or a standard text with a misconception list — related
- In the full sample, the text-condition contrasts did not significantly predict conceptual change — related
- Personalized refutation text significantly predicts stronger conceptual change among teachers who held both math-gender misconceptions at pre-test — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
refutation-texts-greater-conceptual-change-than-standard |
title |
Refutation texts produce greater conceptual change about multimedia-learning misconceptions than standard texts in student teachers |
description |
Refutation texts produce greater conceptual change about multimedia-learning misconceptions than standard texts in student teachers |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — anja-prinz-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.