Do Reading Goals Make a Difference for Refutation Text Effectiveness?

Abstract

Refutation texts seem to be a promising approach to counter misconceptions. They provoke a cognitive conflict by explicitly naming a misconception and correcting it with a scientific explanation. However, the literature reports mixed findings about their effectiveness, underlining the need to examine potential moderators. For example, when presenting preservice teachers a refutation text to combat an educational myth, the instructed reading goal might be of importance because reading goals can affect how readers process a text. In this study, we examined whether reading goals influence the effect of refutation texts and facilitate belief change about an educational myth in preservice teachers. The preregistered experiment (N = 168) followed a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed design with the between-participants factors text type (refutation vs. traditional) and reading goal (explanation vs. entertainment), and the within-participants factor time (before vs. after reading). Participants who had read a refutation text rather than a traditional text were more likely to change their false belief. However, the refutation effect was independent of participants’ reading goals. These results strengthen existing evidence that refutation texts are better suited for addressing misconceptions than traditional textbooks. However, we still require a better understanding of the conditions that increase refutation text effectiveness.