Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co‐activation in confronting misconceptions

TLDR

Science texts can be presented in regular or refutation versions, and prior off‑line research suggests that refutation versions promote revision among readers with incorrect knowledge. This study investigates how readers’ incorrect knowledge affects online comprehension processes and the conditions that foster knowledge revision during reading of science texts. The authors used a computational Landscape Model and empirical think‑aloud plus reading‑time data to compare comprehension between readers with correct and incorrect background knowledge. Incorrect knowledge systematically alters both the type and content of processing, and co‑activation of correct and incorrect conceptions—facilitated by refutation texts—triggers inconsistency detection and revision, underscoring the impact of misconceptions on online text processing and informing revision‑promoting methods. © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, we investigate the effects of readers' incorrect knowledge on the on‐line comprehension processes during reading of science texts, with an eye towards examining the conditions that encourage revision of such knowledge. We employed computational (Landscape Model) and empirical (think‐aloud and reading times) methods to compare comprehension processes by readers with correct and incorrect background knowledge, respectively. Science texts were presented in either regular or refutation versions; Prior research using off‐line methods suggests that refutation versions promote revision in readers with incorrect knowledge. The results of the current study indicate that incorrect knowledge systematically influences both type and content of processing. Moreover, simultaneous activation of correct and incorrect conceptions during reading plays an essential role in knowledge revision: The computational simulations show that refutation texts create optimal circumstances for co‐activation of the incorrect and correct conceptions and the empirical data show that such a co‐activation is associated with inconsistency detection and revision activities by the readers with incorrect knowledge. These findings provide insights in the effects of misconceptions on the on‐line text processing and have important implications for the development of methods for achieving revision during reading. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.