How Learners Deal With Uncertainty in Controversial Science-Related Texts

• In Event: Public Understanding of Science: The Educational Challenges of Scientific “Uncertainty”

Abstract

Objectives. When learners use the World Wide Web to inform themselves about currently debated scientific issues, they will usually read more than one text. As a consequence, they are faced with the task to construct a coherent referential representation (situation model) of the scientific issue on the basis of multiple texts with conflicting information. Moreover, learners will not be fully impartial when they research new scientific information, but instead often favor one argumentative position in the controversy over another one.
Theoretical framework. We propose that learners deal with belief-consistent and –inconsistent scientific information from multiple texts by routinely judging the plausibility of incoming information with regard to their current situation model, prior knowledge and beliefs (epistemic monitoring). As a consequence, information consistent with learner’s initial beliefs is more likely to be integrated into the situation model, whereas inconsistent information tends to be rejected (assimilative processing). However, presenting texts that argue for divergent argumentative positions in the scientific controversy alternatingly (as in refutational texts) might assist learners in additional elaborative epistemic processing, enhancing the construction of a balanced and rich mental representation of controversial issues.
Method. The present experiments investigated whether a belief-consistency effect in multiple text comprehension exists. In addition, we investigated whether this effect is weakened by an alternating presentation of belief-consistent and belief-inconsistent texts. Sixty-eight students in upper secondary school (age 16-18 years, Experiment 1) and 72 university students (Experiment 2) read four texts that represented two contrary positions on one of two issues (climate change /regular vaccinations). After each text, comprehension on the level of the situation model was assessed with a recognition task and plausibility judgments were collected.
Results. An ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect of text-belief consistency and presentation mode on situation model strength, F(1,67) = 5.3, p < .05, η2 = .07 (Experiment 1); F (1,71) = 4.3, p < .05, hp2 = .07 (Experiment 2). When texts were presented in a blocked mode there was a strong belief-consistency effect: the situation model for the belief-consistent texts was stronger than the situation model for the belief-inconsistent texts. However, the situation models for belief-consistent and –inconsistent texts were equally strong when texts were presented in an alternating fashion. In line with the idea of epistemic monitoring, an analysis in terms of multinomial models suggested a bi-directional relationship of text-belief consistency/plausibility and situation model construction. On the one hand, text-belief consistency enhanced situation model integration of text information. On the other hand, information that had been integrated into the situation model was more likely to be judged as being plausible.
Scientific significance. Our results support the idea that assimilative processing is the default mode of processing conflicting information in multiple texts. However, a more constructive elaborative mode can be promoted by presenting belief-consistent and -inconsistent texts in an alternating sequence. This helps students to relate both sides of a currently debated scientific issue and to create a more sophisticated and balanced mental representation of the issue.

Authors

• Johanna Maier, University of Kassel

• Tobias Richter, University of Kassel