Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Teachers are often tasked with changing their students’ conceptions about scientific topics. One strategy that has been found effective for conceptual change is the use of refutation text. However, reviewing the literature revealed that many practical questions around the use refutation text have not been adequately addressed. A secondary issue is that teachers often create instructional videos for their students to view outside of class, but little guidance exists on how to design these videos. This study begins to examine the intersection of refutation text, conceptual change, and instructional video design by testing (a) the effects of traditional refutation text and soft refutation text on conceptual change when presented as narration in an instructional video, (b) the effects of traditional refutation text compared to soft refutation text when presented as narration on conceptual change in an instructional video, and (c) the influence of the presence of a human hand in the instructional video on cognitive, affective, and conceptual change scores. The results indicated that traditional refutation text and soft refutation text retain their effectiveness when presented as narration in an instructional video; soft refutation text and traditional refutation text produced nearly identical conceptual change when presented as narration in an instructional video; and the inclusion of a human hand in the instructional video did not influence conceptual change, learning, or the learners’ perceptions of the instructor. The preliminary implications for theory and practice are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263. CrossRef
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427. CrossRef
Borel, B. (2014). Core truths: 10 common GMO claims debunked. Popular Science. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked on January 12, 2015.
Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53, 3–14. CrossRef
Ferry, N., & Gatehouse, A. M. R. (Eds.). (2009). Environmental impact of genetically modified crops. Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61–72. CrossRef
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313–331. CrossRef
Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54. CrossRef
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.
Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: Assessing accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 20, 231–248. CrossRef
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of the speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425. CrossRef
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213. CrossRef
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of contextual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. CrossRef
Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle-school students’ attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers and Education, 53(2), 209–215. CrossRef
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conceptions: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. CrossRef
Rosenberg-Kima, R., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2741–4756. CrossRef
Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 2, 291–314.
Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect learner’s cognitive and affective outcomes? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2(2), 114–133.
Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Impacts of pedagogical agent gender in an accessible learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 401–411.
Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Barouch Gilbert, R. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39. CrossRef
Schroeder, N. L., & Gotch, C. M. (2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204. CrossRef
Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107–115. CrossRef
Tippet, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970. CrossRef
Van der Meij, H. (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845–857. CrossRef
Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003.
- A Preliminary Investigation of the Influences of Refutation Text and Instructional Design
Noah L. Schroeder
- Springer Netherlands
in-adhesives, MKVS, Hellmich GmbH/© Hellmich GmbH, Zühlke/© Zühlke, Neuer Inhalt/© momius | stock.adobe.com