The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Original Article

Effects of text structure, reading goals and epistemic beliefs on conceptual change

Gregory Trevors

Corresponding Author

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, , Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Address for correspondence: Gregory Trevors, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St, Montreal, Quebec, H9W 2B2, Canada. E‐mail:

gregory.trevors@mail.mcgill.ca

Search for more papers by this author
Krista R. Muis

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, , Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 30 June 2014
Cited by: 5

Abstract

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.

Number of times cited: 5

  • , Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts, Memory & Cognition, 45, 1, (168), (2017).
  • , Integrating Relational Reasoning and Knowledge Revision During Reading, Educational Psychology Review, 29, 1, (27), (2017).
  • , Adolescents’ epistemic profiles in the service of knowledge revision, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, (107), (2017).
  • , Self-regulated learning processes vary as a function of epistemic beliefs and contexts: Mixed method evidence from eye tracking and concurrent and retrospective reports, Learning and Instruction, 42, (31), (2016).
  • , Identity and Epistemic Emotions During Knowledge Revision: A Potential Account for the Backfire Effect, Discourse Processes, 53, 5-6, (339), (2016).