Conflicting scientific evidence occurs when competing scientific explanations of a scientifically relevant phenomenon exist. Therefore, the ability to comprehend scientific explanations, to mindfully relate them to each other, and to evaluate their relationship is an important prerequisite for understanding the conflicting status of scientific explanations. The aim of the project is to study how laypersons evaluate competing scientific explanations presented in the internet. In the first phase of the project, three experiments explore the relationship between different principles of explanatory coherence and internet-specific characteristics when evaluating explanations. Experiment 1 examines the influence of the causality of scientific explanations on explanation evaluation as a function of the semantic interconnectedness of the information constituting the scientific explanations. Experiment 2 examines the influence of the simplicity of scientific explanations on explanation evaluation as a function of the expertise of the authors having created the scientific explanations. Experiment 3 examines the influence of breadth of scientific explanations on explanation evaluation as a function of the fallacies evoked by false information contained in the scientific explanations. The experiments aim to shed light on the psychological reality of using principles of explanatory coherence as a basis for evaluating competing scientific explanations in the internet. In particular, it will be examined whether principles of explanatory coherence operate differently as a strategy for explanation evaluation when internet-specific characteristics are to be considered as competing information in the evaluation process.
Publications:
Ihme, N., & Wittwer, J. (2015). The role of consistency, order, and structure in evaluating and comprehending competing scientific explanations. Instructional Science, 43, 507-526.
Wittwer, J., & Ihme, N. (2014). Reading skill moderates the impact of semantic similarity and causal specificity on the coherence of explanations. Discourse Processes, 51, 143-166.
Conference Contributions:
Wittwer, J., & Stadtler, M. (2013, August). Comprehending and evaluating expository texts with contradictions. Symposium at the 15th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Munich, Germany.
Wittwer, J., Wahl, N. (2013, August). Effects of presentation order and text structure in processing inconsistent explanations. Talk in the Symposium “Comprehending and evaluating expository texts with contradictions”. 15th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Munich, Germany.
Ihme, N. & Wittwer, J. (2012, September). Der Einfluss semantischer und kausaler Verbundenheit auf das Verstehen und Bewerten wissenschaftlicher Erklärungen. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.
Wittwer, J., & Ihme, N. (2012, May). The role of causality for the plausibility of scientific explanations. Talk at the Meeting on “Comprehension and validation of information – two separate stages of information processing?”, Kassel, Germany.
Wittwer, J., Ihme, N. (2011, June). What accounts for explantory preferences?. Talk at the DFG-NSF Conference Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science. New York City, NY, USA.
Applicant
Wittwer, Jörg Dr.
IPN Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften
Olshausenstr. 62
24098 Kiel
0431/8805076
wittwer@ipn.uni-kiel.de
Website
Research Interest
Tutoring
Instructional explanations
Explanation evaluation
Example-based learning
Large-scale assessments/
Tutoring
Instruktionale Erklärungen
Bewertung von Erklärungen
Beispielbasiertes Lernen
Internationale Vergleichsstudien
Staff
Natalie Ihme
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Pädagogisches Seminar
Waldweg 26
37073 Göttingen
Tel.: +49 551 399734
natalie.ihme@sowi.uni-goettingen.de
Research interest
Explanation evaluation
Salience of landmarks/
Bewertung von Erklärungen
Salienz von Landmarken