Testing the independent effects of refutations and summaries on understanding

IF 2.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Discourse Processes Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2023.2190278
Lena Hildenbrand, Lamorej Roberts, J. Wiley
{"title":"Testing the independent effects of refutations and summaries on understanding","authors":"Lena Hildenbrand, Lamorej Roberts, J. Wiley","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2190278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The present experiment explored the independent effects of refutations and summaries to prevent student misunderstandings when learning from an introductory psychology text on cognitive dissonance. Explicitly presenting and refuting a common misconception about cognitive dissonance did not improve performance on comprehension questions that required understanding of the topic, but adding a final summary paragraph did. The present findings suggest that explanations that aid the integration of correct ideas within a student’s mental model of a phenomenon are more important for supporting conceptual understanding than just the co-activation and recognition of correct and incorrect conceptions.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"320 - 336"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Processes","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2190278","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The present experiment explored the independent effects of refutations and summaries to prevent student misunderstandings when learning from an introductory psychology text on cognitive dissonance. Explicitly presenting and refuting a common misconception about cognitive dissonance did not improve performance on comprehension questions that required understanding of the topic, but adding a final summary paragraph did. The present findings suggest that explanations that aid the integration of correct ideas within a student’s mental model of a phenomenon are more important for supporting conceptual understanding than just the co-activation and recognition of correct and incorrect conceptions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
检验反驳和总结对理解的独立影响
摘要本实验探讨了反驳和总结在防止学生从心理学导论中对认知失调产生误解方面的独立作用。明确地提出和反驳一个关于认知失调的常见误解并不能提高理解问题的表现,而添加最后一段摘要则可以。目前的研究结果表明,有助于将正确想法整合到学生对一种现象的心理模型中的解释,对于支持概念理解来说,比仅仅激活和识别正确和不正确的概念更重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Discourse Processes is a multidisciplinary journal providing a forum for cross-fertilization of ideas from diverse disciplines sharing a common interest in discourse--prose comprehension and recall, dialogue analysis, text grammar construction, computer simulation of natural language, cross-cultural comparisons of communicative competence, or related topics. The problems posed by multisentence contexts and the methods required to investigate them, although not always unique to discourse, are sufficiently distinct so as to require an organized mode of scientific interaction made possible through the journal.
期刊最新文献
The underlying mechanisms of the persuasiveness of different types of satirical news messages. Children’s understanding of referential nominal metaphors: a path to the heart of text comprehension An interactional practice of registering expectation discrepancy: the use of the turn-initial token are in Japanese Does the gender asterisk (“Gendersternchen”) as a special form of gender-fair language impair comprehensibility? Russ Tomlin, attention, working memory, reference, and referential choice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1