Abstract
Students are often asked to make evaluations of scientific explanations, which may involve judgments about the plausibility of competing alternatives. We examined undergraduate students' critical evaluations and plausibility perceptions of climate change when reading two different types of text: expository and refutation. Our findings show that greater critical evaluation and higher plausibility related to more knowledge after reading, but only with the refutation text. Furthermore, we found that greater plausibility had a stronger effect on knowledge after reading the refutation text, whereas greater background knowledge had a stronger effect on knowledge after reading the expository text. We also examined changes in students' plausibility and knowledge. There was significant changes in plausibility and knowledge with the refutation text, but no significant change in either variable with the expository text. These results suggest that evaluations and judgments about plausibility may be factors contributing to the refutation effect and knowledge reconstruction.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.