Belief in Corrective Feedback for Common Misconceptions: Implications for Knowledge Revision

When correcting a common misconception, it seems likely that for corrective feedback to be effective, it needs to be believed. In 2 experiments, we assessed how participants’ belief in the validity of corrective feedback regarding individual misconceptions influenced knowledge revision. After responding about the validity of a set of misconceptions, participants received either a refutation alone (feedback that they were correct or incorrect) or a refutation accompanied by a supporting explanation, and then rated their belief in the corrective feedback. One week later, participants once again responded about the validity of the misconceptions. Across both experiments, participants corrected their misconceptions more often when they believed the corrective feedback. In addition, participants corrected their misconceptions more often when they had earlier received a refutation with a supporting explanation than when they had received the refutation only. This benefit of supportive explanations on knowledge revision was mediated by belief in the feedback, suggesting that explanations enhance the effectiveness of a correction by increasing belief in the feedback. These findings imply that successful correction of common misconceptions is likely enhanced by techniques that increase people’s belief in the validity of the corrective feedback.

[1]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education , 1993 .

[2]  Panayiota Kendeou,et al.  Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[3]  Ullrich K. H. Ecker,et al.  Correcting misinformation—A challenge for education and cognitive science. , 2014 .

[4]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  W. Hays.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[6]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  Prior knowledge is more predictive of error correction than subjective confidence , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Edward J. O'Brien,et al.  Knowledge Revision Processes in Refutation Texts , 2014 .

[8]  E. Marsh,et al.  Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced , 2015, Memory & Cognition.

[9]  P. Broek,et al.  The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[10]  A. Koriat.  How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. , 1993 .

[11]  D. Gilbert.  How mental systems believe. , 1991 .

[12]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust , 2005 .

[13]  Hollyn M. Johnson,et al.  Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. , 1994 .

[14]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. , 2007 .

[15]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  The correction of errors committed with high confidence , 2006 .

[16]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  People's hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: did they know it all along? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students' climate change conceptions , 2013 .

[18]  Lisa K. Fazio,et al.  Correcting False Memories , 2010, Psychological science.

[19]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[20]  Ullrich K. H. Ecker,et al.  Misinformation and Its Correction , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[21]  Christine D. Tippett.  REFUTATION TEXT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF TWO DECADES OF RESEARCH , 2010 .

[22]  Elizabeth J Marsh,et al.  The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high-confidence errors return , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  A. C. Butler,et al.  The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Emily R. Smith,et al.  Updating during reading comprehension: why causality matters. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Ullrich K. H. Ecker,et al.  Terrorists brought down the plane!—No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[27]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[28]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[29]  Nicola Ariasi,et al.  Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study , 2011 .

[30]  Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy,et al.  Comprehension and Learning from Refutation and Expository Texts. , 2011 .

[31]  Lisa K. Fazio,et al.  Surprising feedback improves later memory , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  LEARNING COUNTER-INTUITIVE SCIENCE CONCEPTS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OVER A DECADE OF RESEARCH? , 2000 .

[33]  T. Gog,et al.  Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence , 2015 .

[34]  Edward J. O'Brien,et al.  The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) Framework: Processes and Mechanisms , 2014 .

[35]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change , 2011 .

[36]  Cynthia R. Hynd,et al.  The Role of Refutation Text in Overcoming Difficulty with Science Concepts. College Reading and Learning Assistance Technical Report 85-08. , 1985 .

[37]  Ralph E. Reynolds,et al.  The Nature of the Refutation Text Effect: An Investigation of Attention Allocation , 2010 .

[38]  Patrick R. Rich,et al.  The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[39]  Herre van Oostendorp,et al.  Difficulties in updating mental representations during reading news reports. , 1999 .

[40]  G. Nahler.  correction of errors , 2009 .

[41]  Suzanne H. Broughton,et al.  Bridging Reading Comprehension and Conceptual Change in Science Education: The Promise of Refutation Text , 2011 .

[42]  David N. Rapp,et al.  Noticing and Revising Discrepancies as Texts Unfold , 2009 .