Knowledge Revision Processes in Refutation Texts

Discourse Processes

Volumn 51, Issue 5-6, 2014, Pages 374-397

  Kendeou, Panayiota ^a   Walsh, Erinn K ^b   Smith, Emily R ^c   O'Brien, Edward J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

^c SIENA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903588732     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.913961     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Albrecht, J. E., & O'Brien, E. J. (1995). Goal processing and the maintenance of global coherence. In R. R.Lorch & E. J.O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 263-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197-202.
3. Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39, 581-601.
4. Blanc, N., Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., & Brouillet, D. (2008). Updating situation models: Empirical data and simulations. Discourse Processes, 45, 103-121.
5. Braasch, J. G., Goldman, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2013). The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 561-578.
6. Bradfield, J. M., & Moredock, H. (1957). Measurement and evaluation in education. Oxford, UK: Macmillan.
7. Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: An investigation of attention allocation. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 407-423.
8. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 13-19.
9. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense concepts of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199.
11. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S.Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
12. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning & Instruction, 4, 27-43.
13. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
14. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.
15. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 467-563.
16. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning of Mathematics, 9, 26-30.
17. Clement, J. (1991). Non-formal reasoning in science: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In J.Voss, D.Perkins, & J.Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109-129.
19. Cook, A. E., Limber, J. E., & O'Brien, E. J. (2001). Situation-based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 220-234.
20. diSessa, A. A. (2008). Can students re-invent fundamental scientific principles? Evaluating the promise of new-media literacies. In T.Willoughby & E.Wood (Eds.), Children's learning in a digital world (pp. 218-248). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
21. diSessa, A. A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. G.Greeno & S. V.Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 155-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128.
23. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to conceptual development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
24. Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). New Delhi, India: Prentice Hall.
25. Gernsbacher, M. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Glover, J. A. (1989). The "testing" phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392-399.
27. Goldman, S. R., & Varma, S. (1995). CAPping the construction-integration model of discourse comprehension. In C.Weaver, S.Mannes, & C.Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 337-358). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
29. 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, 117-159.
30. Hakala, C. M., & O'Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading. Discourse Processes, 20, 167-185.
31. Hynd, C. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 699-714.
32. Hynd, C. R., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440-446.
33. Hynd, C., & Guzzetti, B. J. (1998). When knowledge contradicts intuition: Conceptual change. In C.Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 139-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1999). Modifying mental representations: Comprehending corrections. In H.van Oostendorp & S. R.Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365-383.
36. Kendeou, P., & O'Brien, E. J. (in press). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. N.Rapp & J. L. G.Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
37. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O'Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854-865.
38. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245.
39. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567-1577.
40. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
41. Linn, M. C. (2008). Teaching for conceptual change: Distinguish or extinguish ideas. In S.Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 694-718). London, UK: Routledge.
42. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 464-470.
43. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629.
44. Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 222-238.
45. Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S.Vosniadou, A.Baltas, & X.Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165-196). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
46. Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291-309.
47. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D.Gentner & A. L.Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. H.Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297-384). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
49. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465-482.
50. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Penttinen, M., Anto, E., & Olkinuora, E. (2008). Constructing mental models during learning from scientific text. In D.Ifenthaler, P.Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M.Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 63-79). New York, NY: Springer.
51. Murphy, P., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. A.Alexander & P. H.Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 305-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
53. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S.Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 391-416). London, UK: Routledge.
54. Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15, 77-101.
55. O'Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 979-991.
56. O'Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2004). Updating situation models: Reply to Zwaan and Madden (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 289-291.
57. O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419-427.
58. O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom-up. In S. R.Goldman, A. C.Graesser, & P.van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59. O'Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210.
60. Ohlsson, S. (2009). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44, 20-40.
61. 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.
62. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: The effectiveness of refutations as a function of task and content. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2012-2038.
63. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46, 1-24.
64. Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276-279.
65. Rizzella, M. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1996). Accessing global causes during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1208-1218.
66. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255.
67. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 374-393.
68. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 405, 510-528.
70. Tan, K., Goh, N., Chia, L., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Secondary students' perceptions about learning qualitative analysis in inorganic chemistry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19, 223-234.
71. Thagard, P. (2008). Explanatory coherence. In J. E.Adler & L. J.Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 471-513). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutational text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951-970.
73. Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34.
74. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
75. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-169.
76. Trumper, R. (2001). A cross-age study of senior high school students' conceptions of basic astronomy concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19, 97-109.
77. Tzeng, Y., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Lee, C. (2005). The computational implementation of the landscape model: Modeling inferential processes and memory representations of text comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 277-286.
78. van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.
79. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351.
80. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H.van Oostendorp & S. R.Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
82. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
83. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183.
84. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386-397.