Search

Background: Research has shown substantial belief change as a result of reading text and the pervasive influence of prior belief in the evaluation of short arguments. Both outcomes have been attributed to the depth to which the text or the argument has been processed. This study brings together critical thinking and text comprehension research by employing an extended argumentative text and varying the quality of its arguments., Aim: The study examines the contribution of comprehension outcomes to the critical evaluation and persuasive impact of argumentative text., Sample: One hundred and sixteen first-year graduate and third- and fourth-year undergraduate university students., Method: Measures of initial topic-related beliefs, perceived topic knowledge, and need for cognition were obtained. Students read one of two versions of a two-sided, implicitly persuasive argumentative text (677 words) varying in argument quality. Post-reading tasks included main claim recall, overall recall, inference generation, claim agreement, and text evaluation., Results: The text was positively evaluated and highly persuasive regardless of argument quality, but half of the students either failed to identify the main claim promoted or confused it with individual arguments. Despite a modest but positive association between inference generation and text evaluation, no comprehension measure had a significant main or interactive effect. Need for cognition contributed to positive evaluations in the absence of prior topic knowledge regardless of argument quality., Conclusions: The findings suggest a dissociation between the elaboration associated with deep comprehension and the elaboration associated with critical evaluation with implications for belief formation and the teaching of thinking., (© 2015 The British Psychological Society.)

The study examined (a) the extent to which teachers and preservice teachers understand the concept of energy and adhere to particular preconceptions associated with it; and (b) their ability to predict pupils' knowledge and understanding of the same concept. Teachers and preservice teachers completed a test by indicating for each item what their response was and what an average sixth-grade pupil's response might have been, and their predictions were compared to actual pupil performance. Results indicated that teachers' and preservice teachers' understanding of the concept was far from complete, and that teachers were, in general, more likely to overestimate pupils' knowledge. (Contains 5 tables.)

The present study explores possible relations between students' epistemic perspective, learning strategies and text comprehension. In Study 1, 79 sixth graders completed paper-and-pencil instruments to measure their epistemic perspective and learning strategies. Students' epistemic perspective was assessed using a scenario-based instrument, the Livia Problem. Students were epistemically profiled as Absolutists, Multiplists and Evaluativists. Students' learning strategies were assessed through the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). In Study 2, 20 of the students who participated in Study 1 were individually interviewed to measure their learning strategies, where they were asked to read a text and think aloud. Results revealed that students who were profiled as Evaluativists showed greater self-efficacy, intrinsic value, use of cognitive strategies and self-regulation. In addition, students who were profiled as Evaluativists engaged in more effective learning strategies and exhibited better text comprehension compared to students who were profiled as Absolutists. In particular, students who exhibited an Evaluativist epistemic perspective engaged in the strategies of understanding vocabulary, summarising and underlying, while students who exhibited an Absolutist epistemic perspective engaged more in repeating information and quick reading. Our findings show that a mature epistemic perspective is associated with effective usage of learning strategies and text comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We identify three aspects of scientific thinking beyond the control-of-variables strategy that we claim are essential for students to master as a foundation for skilled scientific thinking. The first is strategic and involves the ability to coordinate effects of multiple causal influences on an outcome. The second is a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world. The third is the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence. We present new empirical data with respect to the first two of these competencies, supporting the claim that they are not well developed by early adolescence and warrant attention and provision of effective kinds of scaffolding. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]