Comparing the Effects of Traditional vs. Misconceptions-Based Instruction on Student Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect

Mccuin, John L.; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hayhoe, Douglas

doi:10.5408/13-068.1

Cited by 39 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social media presents one potent option for practically deploying resources of this type to neutralize misinformation, using an approach described as 'technocognition': an approach that incorporates principles from behavioural economics, cognitive psychology, and philosophy in the design of information architectures . Misconception-based learning, applied in the classroom, is another powerful and practical model for deploying inoculation content (McCuin et al 2014). While there have been efforts to apply this approach to climate education (Bedford 2010, Cook et al 2014, and development of resources (Bedford and Cook 2016), there is in general a dearth of misconceptionbased learning resources for educators (Tippett 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Cook

Ellerton

Kinkead

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misinformation can have significant societal consequences. For example, misinformation about climate change has confused the public and stalled support for mitigation policies. When people lack the expertise and skill to evaluate the science behind a claim, they typically rely on heuristics such as substituting judgment about something complex (i.e. climate science) with judgment about something simple (i.e. the character of people who speak about climate science) and are therefore vulnerable to misleading information. Inoculation theory offers one approach to effectively neutralize the influence of misinformation. Typically, inoculations convey resistance by providing people with information that counters misinformation. In contrast, we propose inoculating against misinformation by explaining the fallacious reasoning within misleading denialist claims. We offer a strategy based on critical thinking methods to analyse and detect poor reasoning within denialist claims. This strategy includes detailing argument structure, determining the truth of the premises, and checking for validity, hidden premises, or ambiguous language. Focusing on argument structure also facilitates the identification of reasoning fallacies by locating them in the reasoning process. Because this reason-based form of inoculation is based on general critical thinking methods, it offers the distinct advantage of being accessible to those who lack expertise in climate science. We applied this approach to 42 common denialist claims and find that they all demonstrate fallacious reasoning and fail to refute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. This comprehensive deconstruction and refutation of the most common denialist claims about climate change is designed to act as a resource for communicators and educators who teach climate science and/or critical thinking.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Cook

Ellerton

Kinkead

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This teaching approach is known as misconception-based learning [74], agnotology-based learning [75], or learning from refutational texts [76]. Misconception-based learning has been successfully implemented in classrooms [77] and a Massive Open Online Course [78].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misinformation can undermine a well-functioning democracy. For example, public misconceptions about climate change can lead to lowered acceptance of the reality of climate change and lowered support for mitigation policies. This study experimentally explored the impact of misinformation about climate change and tested several pre-emptive interventions designed to reduce the influence of misinformation. We found that false-balance media coverage (giving contrarian views equal voice with climate scientists) lowered perceived consensus overall, although the effect was greater among free-market supporters. Likewise, misinformation that confuses people about the level of scientific agreement regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had a polarizing effect, with free-market supporters reducing their acceptance of AGW and those with low free-market support increasing their acceptance of AGW. However, we found that inoculating messages that (1) explain the flawed argumentation technique used in the misinformation or that (2) highlight the scientific consensus on climate change were effective in neutralizing those adverse effects of misinformation. We recommend that climate communication messages should take into account ways in which scientific content can be distorted, and include pre-emptive inoculation messages.

show abstract

“…Studies indicate that less than 60 min of intervention with undergraduate students can change their understanding of climate change (McCuin et al 2014, McNeal et al 2014a, Rannay and Clark 2016, Gil 2017. When the intervention was more intensive, significant gains persisted two years later (Burkholder et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing evangelical minds on climate change

Hayhoe

Bloom

Webb

2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One quarter of Americans self-identify as evangelical and a strong majority of these reject humaninduced climate change. Can one lecture on climate science from a Christian perspective change their minds? Here, we examine the response of undergraduates at three evangelical institutions, located in upper state New York, Texas, and Canada, to a recorded lecture by an evangelical climate scientist. Pre/post-test surveys posed six questions from the Global Warming's Six Americas instrument with additional questions on participants' political and theological perspectives. All populations showed significant pre/post-test gains on almost every question, immediately after the intervention, with gains among the most conservative population being as large as the others. A one-month delayed postsurvey showed that gains were still significant relative to pre-test values for most of the questions. Furthermore, gains did not decrease when the Christian frame was removed, except on one item related to Christian responsibility. These results suggest that even a limited exposure to accurate information can change minds, and that the context in which the information is presented (here, the evangelical college and faculty sponsor) may be more important than the content frame.

show abstract

Comparing the Effects of Traditional vs. Misconceptions-Based Instruction on Student Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect

Cited by 39 publications

References 38 publications

Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence

Changing evangelical minds on climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About