In one experiment, refutational text (misbelief stated first, then fact) enhanced free recall relative to traditional text and free and cued recall relative to inverted refutational text, but its reported 14-day recognition advantage was over inverted refutational text only¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1992 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 3 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 1, refutational text outperformed traditional text on free recall and inverted refutational text on both free and cued recall, and beat inverted refutational text on 14-day recognition; no 14-day advantage over traditional text is reported. → Woloshyn 1992

Evidence¶

Woloshyn 1992¶

Woloshyn, Vera E.; Paivio, Allan; Pressley, Mike. (1992). Using Elaborative Interrogation To Help Students Overcome Their Inaccurate Science Beliefs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED356949

q3 · i? · F and post-hoc test statistics printed, no effect size · causal · r2

Experiment 1 text-type analysis: significant text-type main effects on free and cued recall (F(2,116) > 7.78, p<.001) and on 14-day recognition (F(2,116) = 5.69, p<.005), with "Reading refutational text enhanced free recall for facts relative to reading traditional text."

"Reading refutational text enhanced free recall for facts relative to reading traditional text (a = 3.78, p<.01), and enhanced both free and cued recall relative to reading inverted refutational text (a > 3.79, p<.01)."

Discussion¶

One experiment is recorded. The entry prints F tests and post-hoc comparisons but no effect size, so the size of the advantage is not established (an earlier i1 code had no printed effect size behind it). The 14-day recognition test showed a text-type main effect; the advantage reported for refutational text at that delay is over inverted refutational text; no advantage over traditional text is reported at 14 days.

Related Claims¶

• Instruction that confronts science misconceptions (conceptual-conflict interventions, refutation text) produces conceptual change more often than standard exposition — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Students recognize more belief-consistent science facts than belief-inconsistent facts, an effect appearing on recognition but not recall tests — related
• External empirical evidence can refute a computational model of particle interactions when the model's own simulation cannot — related