Conceptual Change with Refutational Map

Qing Liu

Students often develop their perceptions about natural phenomena before taking courses (Posner et al, 1982).

“Misconceptions” (Fisher, 1985) or “Alternative conceptions” (Arnaudin & Mintzes, 1985) are those perceptions inconsistent with scientific viewpoints.

Misconceptions are barriers to learning of science (Zietsman & Hewson, 1986). (1) Misconceptions are resistant to change. (2) Students rely on misconceptions to learn new concepts.

Misconceptions1.

INTRODUCTION

Conceptual change is a learning process in which learners’ misconceptions are transformed to more scientific conceptions.

Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982) proposed a Conceptual Change Model (CCM) to explore how learners change their misconceptions through an interaction between previous and new concepts.

(1) Dissatisfaction (2) Intelligibility (3) Plausibility (4) Fruitfulness

Cognitive conflict is a necessity.

Conceptual Change Model1.

INTRODUCTION

Traditional science textbooks may not be effective to promote students’ conceptual change (Guzzetti et al, 1993, Woloshyn et al, 1994).

Refutational text is a text structure that directly contrasts scientific concepts with commonly held misconceptions (Hynd & Alvermann, 1986).

(1) the explication of an inaccurate conception (2) a refutation of that misconception

Conceptual change text differs from refutational text in that readers are asked to make predictions about the particular situation.

Conceptual Change Strategies1.

INTRODUCTION

Students often have difficulties in learning textual information (Griffin & Tulbert, 1995; Taylor, 1985; Winograd, 1984).

Comprehension of textual information is a complicated and dynamic process.

Text reading is too memory intensive.

Many students are not able to build meaningful representations of information.

Concerns on Learning from Texts1.

INTRODUCTION

The term graphic organizer commonly refers to two-dimensional visual knowledge representations, which display the conceptual organization of text (Alvermann, 1981; Ives & Hoy, 2003; Winn, 1991).

Concept map: studying concept is more effective for retaining knowledge (Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).

Argument map: learning argument map could increase memory for arguments (Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart, 2010).

Graphic Organizer1.

INTRODUCTION

Concerns on Learning from Graphic Organizers1.

INTRODUCTION

It may deprive readers of initiative in processing study materials and frame the way readers interact with texts (Tzeng, 2010).

It may sacrifice the effortful elaborative processing attributed to long-term retention and comprehension (Robinson & Schraw, 1994).

Students unfamiliar with learning from node-link visual displays may become the victims of map shock (Dansereau, Dees, & Simpson, 2004).

Refutational Map?

The refutational map used in this study, as a type of argument map, is a box-and-arrow diagram with boxes corresponding to ideas and arrows corresponding to relationships.

The arrows were marked with + or – signs to imply whether the relations were supportive (+) or unsupportive (–).

Refutational Map1.

INTRODUCTION

Need for Cognition It reflects the extent to which people engage in and enjoy

effortful cognitive activities.

It has been found to be related to efficiency in processing conflicting information (Kardash & Scholes, 1996).

Logical Thinking Ability It implies students’ cognitive development level.

A large number of studies in science education has reported significant relationships between formal reasoning ability and students’ achievement (Lawson, 1985; Nagy & Griffiths, 1982).

Individual Difference Variables1.

INTRODUCTION

This thesis investigates whether refutational maps could combine the features of refutational texts and graphic organizers to promote conceptual change.

Research Purpose1.

INTRODUCTION

1. Does explicit discussion of misconceptions lead to better learning outcomes?

2. What are cognitive effects of refutational map? Specifically, do students who study refutational map show conceptual change similar to students who study refutational text?

3. Will individual differences in logical thinking ability influence students’ conceptual change?

4. Will logical thinking ability interact with the way in which information is presented?

5. Will individual differences in need for cognition influence students’ conceptual change?

Research Questions2.

RESEARCH

Q&H

Eligibility: demonstrating misconceptions about the motion of objects in screening test.

Number: 164 —>120 Questionnaire: Demographic questionnaire Need for Cognition Scale (18 items) (Caccioppo and Petty,

1982) Test of Logical Thinking (Tobin and Capie, 1981) Random assignment into one of the three groups: 1. NRT: non-refutational text group (n=40) 2. RT: refutational text group (n=40) 3. RM: refutational map group (n=40)

Participants3.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The refutational map was transformed from the refutational text.

The display of refutational map was designed as a learner-controlled animation to avoid map shock.

Learner-Paced Refutational Map

3.

METHOD

MATERIALS

&

INSTRUMENTS

The two texts were adapted from the versions used in earlier studies (Alverman & Hynd, 1989).

Non-refutational text: only describes Newton’s ideas of motion

Refutational text: contrasts Newton’s ideas of motion to the misconceptions

The refutational and non-refutational texts were of similar length (611 words and 603 words, respectively).

A learner-paced animation was used to present either the refutational text or the non-refutational text.

Learner-Paced Texts3.

METHOD

MATERIALS

&

INSTRUMENTS

1. Free Recall Test Write everything they can remember from the reading materials

in complete sentences but not to worry about spelling and grammar.

2. Transfer Essay Test (5 questions)Four questions were used in earlier studies (Alverman & Hynd, 1989)

3. Multiple-Choice Test (9 questions)Nine questions were drawn from the Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes et al. 1992; Mazur 1997)

Outcome Tests3.

METHOD

MATERIALS

&

INSTRUMENTS

TEST

1. Screening Test2. Questionnaire Demographic Questionnaire Need for Cognition Scale Test of Logical Thinking3. Read Treatment-Specific Materials4. Sudoku Puzzle5. Free Recall Test6. Transfer Essay Test7. Multiple Choice Test

Procedure3.

METHOD

PROCEDURE

Demographic data Scores on the Need for Cognition Scale Scores on the Test of Logical Thinking Time spent on texts or map reading Scores on the free recall test Scores on the transfer essay-type questions Scores on the transfer multiple-choice questions

Types of Data Collected4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

Test of Equivalence4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

ANOVA: no statistically significant difference was found among three groups in

age, p =.63 reading time, p =.13 need for cognition, p =.63 test of logical thinking, p =.32.

Correlations4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

Treatment Readings

NRT RT RM

LogicalThinking

Low

High

The Analyses of Outcome Tests4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

2×3 MANOVA

DV: overall outcome tests (free recall, transfer essay and MC) Results: No Interaction: p = .08, ηp2= .05. Main effect of treatment readings: p = .001, ηp2= .09. Main effect of logical thinking abilities: p < .001, ηp2= .20

The Analyses of Free Recall Test4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

2 (Logical: low vs. high)×3 (Reading: NRT vs. RT vs. RM) ANOVA DV: free recall test No Interaction: p = .25. The effect of treatment readings: p < .001, ηp2= .15

The effect of logical thinking: p < .001, ηp2= .17. Participants with higher logical thinking ability (M = 11.90, SD

=4.83) did much better in the free recall test than those with lower logical thinking ability (M = 7.47, SD =5.05).

Tukey HSD

RM (M = 12.33, SD = 4.80) RT (M = 8.82, SD = 5.11)NRT (M = 7.34, SD = 5.17)

The Analyses of Multiple-Choice Test4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

Cronbach’s alpha = .68 2 (Logical: low vs. high)×3 (Reading: NRT vs. RT vs. RM) ANOVA DV: multiple-choice test No interaction: p = .55. The effect of treatment readings: p = .39. The effect of logical thinking: p = .10.

The Analyses of Transfer Essay Test4.

DATA

ANALYSIS

Cronbach’s alpha = .71 2 (Logical: low vs. high)×3 (Reading: NRT vs. RT vs. RM) ANOVA DV: transfer essay test Interaction: p =.03, ηp2= .06. The effect of treatment readings: p = .05, ηp2= .05.

The effect of logical thinking: p < .001, ηp2= .13. Students with higher logical thinking ability performed better (M

= 11.51, SD = 3.11) than those demonstrating lower logical thinking ability (M = 8.46, SD = 4.47).

Tukey HSD

RM (M = 11.08, SD = 3.94)RT (M = 10.04, SD = 4.08)

RT (M = 10.04, SD = 4.08) NRT (M = 8.46, SD = 4.19)

The Interaction between Refutational Map and Logical Thingking 4

.

DATA

ANALYSIS

Participants with higher logical thinking ability performed equally well on the transfer essay questions across the three reading groups, p = .40.

For those demonstrating lower-level logical thinking ability, treatment-specific readings contributed to a statistically significant difference in the transfer essay scores, p =.008, ηp2= .14.

Tukey HSD

RM (M = 10.93, SD = 4.55) RT (M = 7.83, SD = 3.94)NRT (M = 7.00, SD = 4.13)

The Interaction between Refutational Map and Logical Thingking 4

.

DATA

ANALYSIS

Results5.

DISCUSSION

Studying refutational map conduced to superior overall learning outcomes?

Participants reading refutational map significantly outperformed the other two groups in the free recall test.

In the transfer essay test, the refutational map group did as well as the refutational text group, and did much better than the non-refutational text group.

Unexpectedly, the performance of participants across the three reading groups did not differ significantly in the multiple-choice test.

Participants reading refutational text and those learning non-refutational text did not perform differently in either the free recall test or the transfer essay test.

Results5.

DISCUSSION

Individual difference in logical thinking influenced participants’ conceptual change.

Participants with higher logical thinking ability outperformed those lower in logical thinking ability in both the free recall and transfer essay tests.

Lower level logical thinkers could benefit more from studying refutational map, which eliminated the effect of logical thinking on the transfer essay test.

Need for cognition was positively correlated with conceptual change.

Implications5.

DISCUSSION

Teachers could employ refutational map as a useful cognitive tool to:

---facilitate students’ memorization and conceptual change; ---narrow the gap in transfer learning between lower and higher

level logical thinkers.

Refutational map could be used as a adjunct to traditional reading materials.

It is a time- and cost-efficient intervention which holds promise for a wide and flexible adoption in classroom settings.

Limitations and Future Work5.

DISCUSSION

The design of multiple-choice test is problematic. The degree of participants’ familiarity with learning refutational

map may influence their learning outcomes. Therefore, sufficient training would be necessary.

Would the results be different if the reading materials used in this study were more lengthy and complicated?

The effect of need for cognition on conceptual change could be further examined.

Future studies could investigate the effect of other individual characteristics, such as spatial and/or verbal reasoning ability, on learning with refutational map.

Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive texts. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44-48.

Alvermann, D. E. & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83 (2), 97-102.

Arnaudin, M.W & Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross age study. Science Education, 69 (5), 721-733.

Cacioppo, John T. & Richard E. Petty (1982). “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychlogy, 42, 116-131.

Dansereau, D. F., Dees, S. M. & Simpson, D. D. (1994). Cognitive Modularity: Implications for Counseling and representation of personal issues. The Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 513-523.

Dwyer, C., Hogan, M., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5 (1), 16-22.

Fisher, K.M. (1985). A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (1), 53-62.

Griffin, C., & Tulbert, B. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers on students’ comprehension and recall of expository texts: A review of the research and implications for practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 73-89.

References

 Guzzetti, B.J., Snyder, T.E., Glass, G.V., & Gamas, W.S. (1993) Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–155.

Hestenses, D., M. Wells, and G. Swackhammer. 1992. Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.

Hynd, C. & Alvermann, D.E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440–446.

Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 36-51.

Kardash, C. M. & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of pre-existing beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260-271.

Lawson, A.E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 569-617.Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Nagy, P. & Griffiths, A.K. (1982). Limitations of recent research relating Piaget's theory to adolescent

thought. Review of Educational Research, 52,Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta‐analysis.

Review of Educational Research, 76, 413‐448.

References

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399-415.

Taylor, B. M. (1985). Toward an understanding of factors contributing to children's difficulty summarizing textbook material. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in Literacy: A research perspective (pp. 125-131). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Tobin, K. G. & Capie, W. (1981). The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 413-423.

Tzeng, J. Y. (2010). Designs of concept maps and their impacts on readers’ performance in memory and reasoning while reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 128-147.

Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211-247.Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly,

19, 404-425.Woloshyn, Vera E, Paivio, Allan, & Pressley, Michael (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to

help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 79-89.

Zietsman, A.I. & Hewson, P.W. (1986). Effect of instruction using microcomputer simulations and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 27–39.

References

Thank you!

Qing Liu