ABSTRACT One point of contention in the refutation text literature is whether testing is a cognitively neutral task. On the one hand, pretesting is useful to determine what misconceptions learners hold and to what extent the intervention addresses these misconceptions. On the other hand, evidence from previous research has highlighted the potential ramifications of pretesting on both the results and interpretations of refutational text effects. In this study, we leveraged a Solomon four-group design to investigate the potential influence of pretesting on conceptual change and confidence when learning from refutational text. One hundred and thirteen individuals, who were recruited online, participated in the study. We present two findings: first, the two refutational text groups experienced a more successful conceptual change than those in expository groups. Second, no significant differences were found in participants’ retrospective confidence judgments or judgmental accuracy across text structures or pretest conditions. Taken together, the results suggest that refutational text is more effective in facilitating conceptual change, and including pretesting in refutational text studies might not cause overestimations of the refutational text effects. The present study took the first step to examine the potential pretesting sensitization in refutational text studies, and future research is encouraged to include multiple topics, delay tests, and various measurements to examine the potential overestimation of refutational text effects.
Read full abstract