Refutation Text in Science Education: A Review of Two Decades of Research

Abstract

As people attempt to make sense of the world, they develop personal knowledge structures. These structures often contain misconceptions-inaccurate or incomplete information-that are highly resistant to change because existing knowledge networks must be restructured to accommodate counterintuitive information in a process known as conceptual change. Since textbooks are the dominant resource for science instruction in most classrooms, text-based methods of facilitating conceptual change need to be examined. Since the mid-1980 s, researchers have investigated the conceptual change potential of refutation text, a text structure that includes elements of argumentation and that has been described as one of the most effective text-based means for modifying readers' misconceptions. In this paper, twenty years of refutation text research in science and reading education is reviewed and then a secondary analysis of those results is conducted to explore developmental aspects of the efficacy of refutation text. Although a developmental relationship was not revealed, two decades of research indicate that reading refutation text rather than traditional expository text is more likely to result in conceptual change.

Confront and Cluster—How Different Groups of Primary School Children Respond to Instruction towards Conceptual Change at an Out-of-School Learning Setting

“…First we needed to get to know the alternative conceptions, then define the problem, refute and secure the new knowledge (Petermann, Friedrich, & Oetken, 2008). Considering reading and presenting skills in primary school children we used the confrontation with pictures (Kubisch & Heyne, 2015;Franke & Bogner, 2011) and a teacher centered discussion during the refutation part instead of refutation text (Tippett, 2010).…”

“…We wish to emphasize that our approach was a discontinuous one (Jung, 1986;Strike & Posner, 1982;Tippett, 2010). We ensured to use students' alternative conceptions as a starting point but instead of establishing a continuous form of learning on top of that, we intended to create a "cognitive conflict" (Franke & Bogner, 2011;Limon, 2001) by confronting them with their own alternative conceptions in a context that would assure the initial perception of said alternative conception to be neither plausible, therefore not useful to solve the current problem, nor fruitful as a solution for future problems (Tippett, 2010).…”

“…We ensured to use students' alternative conceptions as a starting point but instead of establishing a continuous form of learning on top of that, we intended to create a "cognitive conflict" (Franke & Bogner, 2011;Limon, 2001) by confronting them with their own alternative conceptions in a context that would assure the initial perception of said alternative conception to be neither plausible, therefore not useful to solve the current problem, nor fruitful as a solution for future problems (Tippett, 2010). Duit (1995) also states a discontinuity in the process, caused by a change in directions when students are confronted with their own concept.…”

“…We strongly assumed heterogeneity of different conceptions to be a major factor for conceptual change and designed groups of prior knowledge accordingly (Poehnl & Bogner, 2013;Tippett, 2010;Vosniadou et al, 2001). "Conceptual change": We apply this term to students that started out with an alternative conception and changed it throughout an instruction phase to the scientific conception by means of "accommodation", the actual integration of the new, scientific information following a restructuration of prior knowledge (Tippett, 2010) and rejection of the alternative conception.…”

“…"Conceptual change": We apply this term to students that started out with an alternative conception and changed it throughout an instruction phase to the scientific conception by means of "accommodation", the actual integration of the new, scientific information following a restructuration of prior knowledge (Tippett, 2010) and rejection of the alternative conception.…”