Motivating science learning

Conceptual change;science education;naive theories;classroom discussion;collaborative reasoning;depth of processing;self-paced reading;argumentative discussion;mixed-effects models

Miller, Brian W.

关键词: Conceptual change;    science education;    naive theories;    classroom discussion;    collaborative reasoning;    depth of processing;    self-paced reading;    argumentative discussion;    mixed-effects models;   

Others  :  https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/24110/Miller_Brian.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

美国|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

Dual-processing theories of conceptual change hypothesize that if children are more personally involved in a lesson they will process the information more deeply leading to more and stronger conceptual change (Dole & Sinatra, 1998). This study tests this theory by increasing personal involvement through anticipation of a future discussion. Furthermore, argumentative discussions using the Collaborative Reasoning (CR) approach are thought to be more involving than regular discussions (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001) so exposure to CR discussions was used to increase this effect. Classrooms were randomly assigned to receive either CR discussions or regular instruction. Before reading a new text about the shape of the Earth, half of the students were informed they would later discuss the text. Students read clause-by-clause on a computer to record reading times. After reading the story, students received a comprehension test and a self-assessment survey. Before and after the intervention students were given the shape of the Earth interview (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992) to assess their conceptual change. Students who experienced CR had longer reading times and more conceptual change but lower self-assessed depth of processing. Those students who had an announcement had increased comprehension but no other significant effects. These results partially support the dual-process theory but suggest that CR students are processing both the text and their own beliefs during reading leading to longer reading times and more conceptual change, but not improved comprehension of the text.