Files in this item



application/pdfMiller_Brian.pdf (3MB)
(no description provided)PDF


Title:Motivating science learning
Author(s):Miller, Brian W.
Director of Research:Anderson, Richard C.
Doctoral Committee Chair(s):Anderson, Richard C.
Doctoral Committee Member(s):Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad; Brewer, William F.; Stine-Morrow, Elizabeth A.L.
Department / Program:Educational Psychology
Discipline:Educational Psychology
Degree Granting Institution:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Subject(s):Conceptual change
science education
naive theories
classroom discussion
collaborative reasoning
depth of processing
self-paced reading
argumentative discussion
mixed-effects models
Abstract:Dual-processing theories of conceptual change hypothesize that if children are more personally involved in a lesson they will process the information more deeply leading to more and stronger conceptual change (Dole & Sinatra, 1998). This study tests this theory by increasing personal involvement through anticipation of a future discussion. Furthermore, argumentative discussions using the Collaborative Reasoning (CR) approach are thought to be more involving than regular discussions (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001) so exposure to CR discussions was used to increase this effect. Classrooms were randomly assigned to receive either CR discussions or regular instruction. Before reading a new text about the shape of the Earth, half of the students were informed they would later discuss the text. Students read clause-by-clause on a computer to record reading times. After reading the story, students received a comprehension test and a self-assessment survey. Before and after the intervention students were given the shape of the Earth interview (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992) to assess their conceptual change. Students who experienced CR had longer reading times and more conceptual change but lower self-assessed depth of processing. Those students who had an announcement had increased comprehension but no other significant effects. These results partially support the dual-process theory but suggest that CR students are processing both the text and their own beliefs during reading leading to longer reading times and more conceptual change, but not improved comprehension of the text.
Issue Date:2011-05-25
Rights Information:Copyright 2011 Brian W. Miller
Date Available in IDEALS:2011-05-25
Date Deposited:2011-05

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Item Statistics