Refuting student teachers’ misconceptions about multimedia learning

7Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Prior research indicates that student teachers frequently have misconceptions about multimedia learning. Our experiment with N = 96 student teachers revealed that, in contrast to standard texts, refutation texts are effective to address misconceptions about multimedia learning. However, there seems to be no added benefit of making “concessions” to student teachers’ prior beliefs (i.e., two-sided argumentation) in refutation texts. Moreover, refutation texts did not promote the selection of appropriate multimedia material. This study suggests that refutation texts addressing multimedia-learning misconceptions should be applied in teacher education. Yet, further support seems needed to aid the application of the corrected knowledge.

References Powered by Scopus

G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

44786Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A new readability yardstick

3522Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change

3080Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Ethical issues of educational virtual reality

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Not useful to inform teaching practice? Student teachers hold skeptical beliefs about evidence from education science

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The effectiveness of refutation text in confronting scientific misconceptions: A meta-analysis

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Prinz, A., Kollmer, J., Flick, L., Renkl, A., & Eitel, A. (2022). Refuting student teachers’ misconceptions about multimedia learning. Instructional Science, 50(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09568-z

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 7

44%

Lecturer / Post doc 6

38%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

13%

Researcher 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 8

62%

Psychology 3

23%

Philosophy 1

8%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0