Individuals often have misconceptions about education policy issues. Prior research has shown that refutation texts can address misconceptions in other areas (e.g., climate change, GMOs); this study is the first to explore whether participants’ views on controversial education policies—the Common Core State Standards and charter schools—are similarly malleable through refutation text interventions. Results of two experiments show that refutation texts reduced participants’ misconceptions and increased their correct conceptions about both policy issues. These impacts persisted for at least a week in both cases. Our findings hold promise for policymakers, implementers, and researchers seeking to buttress support for policies through direct, evidence-based refutation texts.
AbramowitzA. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.
2.
BroughtonS. H.SinatraG. M.NussbaumE. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole life!” Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students learning about Pluto’s reclassification, Research in Science Education, 43(2), 1–22.
3.
CordovaJ.SinatraG. M.JonesS. H.TaasoobshiraziG.LombardiD. (2014). Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 164–174. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.006.
4.
DanielsonR. W.SinatraG. M. (2016). A relational reasoning approach to text-graphic processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 1–18.
5.
DanielsonR. W.SinatraG. M.KendeauP. (2016). Augmenting the refutation-text effect with analogies and graphics. Discourse Processes. 53(5–6), 392–414, DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1166334
6.
De BruyckereP.KirschnerP. A.HulshofC. D. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. Academic Press.
7.
DonovanA. M.ZhanJ.RappD. N. (2018). Supporting historical understandings with refutation texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 1–11.
8.
FollmerD. J.SperlingR. A.SuenH. K. (2017) The role of MTurk in education research: Advantages, issues, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 329–34.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.
11.
HeddyB. C.DanielsonR. W.SinatraG. M.GrahamJ. (2017). Modifying knowledge, emotions, and attitudes about genetically modified foods. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(3), 513–553.
12.
KendeouP.ButterfussR.KimJ.Van BoekelM. (2019). Knowledge revision through the lenses of the three-pronged approach. Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 33–46.
13.
KendeouP.ButterfussR.Van BoekelM.O’BrienE. J. (2017). Integrating relational reasoning and knowledge revision during reading. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 27–39.
14.
KendeouP.O’BrienE. J. (2014). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In RappD. N.BraaschJ. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.
15.
LemS.OnghenaP.VerschaffelL.Van DoorenW. (2017). Using refutational text in mathematics education. ZDM, 49(4), 509–518.
16.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K.CookJ. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.
17.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.
18.
LinJ. W.YenM. H.LiangJ. C.ChiuM. H.GuoC. J. (2016). Examining the factors that influence students’ science learning processes and their learning outcomes: 30 years of conceptual change research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2617–2646.
McCredieM. N.MoreyL. C. (2018). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workers using the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 1073191118760709.
PolikoffM. S.HardawayT.MarshJ.PlankD. (2016). Who is opposed to Common Core and why?Educational Researcher, 45(4), 263–266.
24.
ShtulmanA.ChecaI. (2017). Parent-child conversations about evolution in the context of an interactive museum display. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(1), 27–46.
25.
SinatraG. M.BroughtonS. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–93.
26.
SinatraG. M.KienhuesD.HoferB. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
27.
SinatraG. M.HoferB. K. (2016). Public understanding of science: Policy and educational implications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 245–253
28.
SinatraG. M.SeyranianV. (2016). Warm change about hot topics: The role of motivation and emotion in attitude and conceptual change about controversial science topics. In CornoL.AndermanE. (Eds.). APA Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 245–256). Washington, DC: APA Publications.
29.
ThackerI.MuisK. R.DanielsonR. W.SinatraG.PekrunR.WinneP. H.ChevrierM. (2017). The influence of attitudes and emotions in learning from multiple texts. Poster presented to the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Tampere, Finland.
30.
TippettC. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951–970.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
