Premium
Effects of text structure, reading goals and epistemic beliefs on conceptual change
Author(s) -
Trevors Gregory,
Muis Krista R.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of research in reading
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.077
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1467-9817
pISSN - 0141-0423
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9817.12031
Subject(s) - conceptual change , psychology , reading (process) , metacognition , reading comprehension , comprehension , cognition , think aloud protocol , coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) , protocol analysis , affect (linguistics) , cognitive psychology , epistemology , social psychology , mathematics education , cognitive science , linguistics , computer science , philosophy , physics , communication , usability , human–computer interaction , neuroscience , quantum mechanics
We investigated the online and offline effects of learner and instructional characteristics on conceptual change of a robust misconception in science. Fifty‐nine undergraduate university students with misconceptions about evolution were identified as espousing evaluativist or non‐evaluativist epistemic beliefs in science. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a traditional or refutational text that discussed a misconception in evolution and a general comprehension or elaborative interrogation reading goal. Participants' cognitive and metacognitive processes while reading were measured using a think‐aloud protocol. Postreading, participants' correct and incorrect conceptual knowledge were separately assessed with a transference essay. Results showed that text structure and reading goals affected cognitive conflict, coherence‐building and elaborative processing while reading and promoted correct conceptual knowledge included in essays but failed to affect the inclusion of misconceptions. Further, participants with evaluativist epistemic beliefs engaged in fewer comprehension monitoring processes and were more likely to adapt their coherence‐building processes according to reading goals than their non‐evaluativist counterparts, but epistemic belief groups did not differ in the content of the posttest essay. Theoretical and educational implications of these findings are discussed.