Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts

Diakidoy, Irene-Anna N., Mouskounti, Thalia, & Ioannides, Christos. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 22-38.

Research on comprehension fascinates me. It is intriguing to get into the processes that go on as readers work to make sense of text. Here, the main variable of interest in the comprehension process is the structure of the text being read. In this case, readers’ comprehension of expository science text was compared with their comprehension of a text on the same science topic that contained a refutational structure. That is, the expository text explained science concepts, but the refutational text went a step further and directly and explicitly addressed common misconceptions, and then provided plausible alternative explanations. The researchers hypothesized that there would not be differences between the two kinds of texts when it came to the amount of knowledge simply recalled, but that there would be qualitative differences in terms of the coherence and relatedness of what was recalled. The point is that the refutational text was expected to produce a higher level of comprehension than the expository text. The researchers’ hypotheses were largely borne out, though there were some snags. In general, those who read the refutational text produced more coherent recalls, and the refutational text was effective in helping the readers correct misconceptions. In fact, the benefit of the refutational text was greater for those students whose pretest scores showed they had low prior knowledge on that particular topic. Refutational texts appear to provide some supports for comprehension that regular expository texts do not. The researchers write about how refutational texts activate prior knowledge and new knowledge simultaneously, which logically should support comprehension, and, if necessary, conceptual change. The snag the researchers encountered was that the refutational text only really helped readers comprehend in a qualitatively better way for one of the sections of text. Apparently the other refutational text segments may not have been as explicit as they needed to be, and also, some of the expository texts may have included some elements of refutational text, so differences were blurred. Obviously, writing good refutational text may not be all that simple, and the more direct and explicit, the better. Of course, the potential of even good refutational text would be improved with good accompanying instruction. The researchers mention this as a factor, but did not provide any kind of instruction about the science concepts (the topic was energy) to the study participants (who were undergraduate college students in an educational psychology course). In my view, though quality, reader-supportive texts are important, good teaching is even more important if students are to comprehend at high levels. It is intriguing to think about how effective, complementary instruction would look in this case. I envision it as including much assessment of prior knowledge, and then explicit discussion addressing misconceptions. In the case of science teaching, concrete demonstrations and experiments should be a part of the instruction, and teacher modeling and think-alouds of scientific thought processes would be beneficial.