Readers depend on prior knowledge to successfully comprehend texts. However, they often hold misconceptions, defined here as inaccurate or incomplete conceptualizations, which can interfere with the acquisition of information and the subsequent use of any acquired knowledge. A variety of approaches have focused on modifying text content to address readers’ misconceptions with the goal of supporting accurate understandings. One empirically validated modification involves the use of refutation texts, which identify a misconception, tag it as inappropriate, and provide a more accurate account. To date, the success of refutation texts has predominantly been studied and applied in science domains (e.g., physics). The current project investigated whether similar benefits might also emerge for history topics. Across two experiments, we pre-screened participants for misconceptions about a well-known event in American history and the Civil Rights Movement: Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her bus seat. Participants read either a refutation or non-refutation text about the topic and completed measures assessing their moment-by-moment comprehension and post-reading memory of the material. Refutation texts led to greater learning gains in terms of recall task performance and questionnaire responses than did non-refutation texts, providing preliminary evidence for the utility of refutations for supporting readers’ valid historical understandings. Participants also read refutation content faster than non-refutation content, indicating differential processing. The results are discussed with respect to the generalizability of refutation texts for history learning as informed by contemporary models of knowledge revision.
Terms of Use: This is an academic paper. Students should NOT copy our materials word to word, as we DO NOT encourage Plagiarism. Only use as a guide in developing your original research work. Thanks.
Disclaimer: All undertaking works, records, and reports posted on this website, eprojectguide.com are the property/copyright of their individual proprietors. They are for research reference/direction purposes and the works are publicly supported. Do not present another person’s work as your own to maintain a strategic distance from counterfeiting its results. Use it as a guide and not duplicate the work in exactly the same words (verbatim). eprojectguide.com is a vault of exploration works simply like academia.edu, researchgate.net, scribd.com, docsity.com, course hero, and numerous different stages where clients transfer works. The paid membership on eprojectguide.com is a method by which the site is kept up to help Open Education. In the event that you see your work posted here, and you need it to be eliminated/credited, it would be ideal if you call us on +2348064699975 or send us a mail along with the web address linked to the work, to eprojectguide@gmail.com. We will answer to and honor each solicitation. Kindly note notification it might take up to 24 – 48 hours to handle your solicitation.