LUOORIGINOF CIVILISATION: TOWARDSA POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ...

Description

• exposé

1LUO ORIGIN OF CIVILISATION: TOWARDS A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANCIENT ITIYO-PI-ANU PEOPLES Dr. Terence Okello Paito - Abstract After the Second World War, Henri Frunkfort, an eminent Egyptologist, suggested that there are distinct groups of Africans surviving today, whose ancestors can be traced back to the ancient Egyptians. A couple of decades later, at a symposium on the peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script, C.A. Diop, resolved to carry out a comparison of the languages of ancient Egypt and those of contemporary Africa.

• civilisation
• osiris race with the nilotic luo
• people of the high god
• homonymous tribe of the nile
• waves after waves
• african origin
• luo
• ancient egypt
• god
• people

Sujets

• Exposé
• Trowell
• Clarke
• Arthur
• Okello
• Breasted
• Holland

Informations

• Publié par: phewyag
• Nombre de lectures: 52
• Langue: English

Extrait

APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 22: 335–351 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1418
Cognitive Processes in Comprehension of Science Texts:
TheRoleofCo-ActivationinConfrontingMisconceptions
1 2*PAULVAN DEN BROEK and PANAYIOTA KENDEOU
1University of Minnesota, USA
2McGill University, Canada
SUMMARY
Inthispaper,weinvestigatetheeffectsofreaders’incorrectknowledgeontheon-linecomprehension
processes during reading of science texts, with an eye towards examining the conditions that
encourage revision of such knowledge. We employed computational (Landscape Model) and
empirical(think-aloudandreadingtimes)methodstocomparecomprehensionprocessesbyreaders
with correct and incorrect background knowledge, respectively. Science texts were presented in
either regular or refutation versions; Prior research using off-line methods suggests that refutation
versions promote revision in readers with incorrect knowledge. The results of the current study
indicate that incorrect knowledge systematically influences both type and content of processing.
Moreover, simultaneous activation of correct and incorrect conceptions during reading plays an
essentialroleinknowledgerevision:Thecomputationalsimulationsshowthatrefutationtextscreate
optimal circumstances for co-activation of the incorrect and correct conceptions and the empirical
datashowthatsuchaco-activationisassociatedwithinconsistencydetectionandrevisionactivities
by the readers with incorrect knowledge. These findings provide insights in the effects of mis-
conceptions on the on-line text processing and have important implications for the development of
methods for achieving revision during reading. Copyright# 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Much of the learning that takes place in and out of schools is based on successful
comprehensionoftexts.Duringcomprehensionreadersconstructamemoryrepresentation
of the text that critically depends on their interpretation in light of prior knowledge. The
success of the comprehension process, therefore, is contingent on the integration of
readers’ prior knowledge with textual information (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002; Kintsch,
1988,1998;vandenBroek,Virtue,Gaddy,Tzeng,&Sung,2002).Thepowerfuleffectsof
readers’priorknowledgeintextcomprehensionweredocumentedasearlyasthebeginning
of the 20th century (Bartlett, 1932). Since then, considerable evidence has been
accumulated that shows that both young and adult readers who have prior knowledge
relatedtothecontentofatexthavemuchbettermemoryofthetextthanreaderswhodonot
have that knowledge (e.g. Chiesi, Spilich, & Voss, 1979; Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999;
Means&Voss,1985;Recht&Leslie,1988).Muchlessattentionhasbeenpaid,however,
to the role of inaccuracy of prior knowledge, despite the fact that readers with inaccurate
knowledge—misconceptions—are the default case rather than the exception (Driver,
*Correspondence to: Paul van den Broek, Department of Educational Psychology, 56 East River Road,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. E-mail: [e-mail]
Copyright# 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.336 P. van den Broek and P. Kendeou
Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994; Kendeou, Rapp, & van den Broek, 2003;
Perkins&Simmons,1988).Problemsresultingfrommisconceptionsoccurforalltypesof
text,buttheyareparticularlyevidentinstudents’learningfromsciencetexts.Alltoooften
inaccurate priorknowledge interferes with the development ofaccurate mental models of
scientificprinciplesandofcorrectexplanationsofwhatishappeninginthephysicalworld
(Carey,1985).Thesemodelsandmayrelyonnaı¨veratherthanscientifically
informedbeliefs,resultingininaccurateknowledgestructures(Nussbaum&Novak,1976;
Sneider & Poulos, 1983; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992, 1994).
In this paper, we consider the effects of misconceptions on the on-line comprehension
processduringreadingofsciencetexts,withaneyetowardsdevelopingwaystoencourage
revision of these inaccurate ideas. In particular, we describe the essential role that
simultaneousactivationofcorrectandincorrectconceptionsplaysinsuchrevision.Wedo
so through a combination of computational and empirical methods based on cognitive
theories of the reading process.
MISCONCEPTIONS IN SCIENCE LEARNING
As mentioned, inaccurate prior knowledge is the norm rather than the exception for
students. Misconceptions usually (though not always) are intuitive and are formed in an
attempttounderstandeverydaylifeexperiences(Hewson&Hewson,1984).Theyconcern
manyphenomenainscience(e.g.earthscience,electricalcircuits,energy,etc.)andappear
in all age groups (Linn, 1986, as cited in Reference Pace, Marshall, Horowitz, Lipson, &
Lucido, 1989). Misconceptions are extraordinarily resistant to change because they are
oftenperfectlyreasonabletothosewhoholdthemandbecausepeopleoftenarecommitted
tothem,giventhattheyaredevelopedthroughpersonalefforttounderstandandexplainthe
world(Guzzetti,Snyder,Glass,&Gamas,1993;Paceetal.,1989).Moreover,misconceptions
often are embedded in well-organized conceptual systems (Carey, 1985).
Importantly, misconceptions interfere with the learning of new, related information
(Diakidoy,1999;Feltovich,Coulson,&Spiro,2001;Guzzetti,1990,2000;West&Pines,
1985) and thus pose a significant educational risk. For this reason, educational
psychologists have started to theorize on the complex cognitive processes involved in
themodificationofmisconceptions,whichiscalledconceptualchange(Hynd&Guzzetti,
1998;McCloskey,1982;Vosniadou,2003),andtoexploreeffectivewaysofaccomplishing
conceptual change. With regard to theory, this has led, for example, to the Conceptual
Change Model (CCM) (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982) that posits that four
conditions need to be met for conceptual change to occur: (1) the student must feel
dissatisfactionwith anexistingconceptualization,(2)anintelligiblenewconceptmustbe
available,(3)theplausibilityofthenewconceptorideamustbedemonstratedand(4)the
student must see this new conception as both useful and appropriate.
With regard to practical ways for achieving conceptual change, focus has been on
changing the structure of texts. Prior research has shown that textbook writing often is
lackinginclarityaboutcentralideasandconcepts(Goldman&Bisanz,2002)andfailsto
beinformedbytheoriesoftextprocessing(Beck,McKeown,Sinatra,&Loxterman,1991).
Methods for improving the clarity, for example by enhancing coherence and by making
implicit connections between text elements explicit (Britton & Gulgoz, 1991), lead to better
memoryofthetextualinformation(Britton,VanDusen,Gulgoz,&Glynn,1989),particularly
for low-skill readers (Linderholm, Gaddy, van den Broek, Mischinski, & Crittenden, 2000).
Copyright# 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 22: 335–351 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/acpComprehension of science texts 337
Althoughthisresearch concernsteachingstudentsnewconceptionsratherthancorrecting
erroneouspriorbeliefs,ithaspromptedinvestigatorstoconsidertextstructureasarouteto
overcomemisconceptionsaswell.Indeed,onespecifictypeofsciencetexthasrepeatedly
been found effectivein changing misconceptions: refutation texts. Refutation textsaim to
persuade students to change prior beliefs by explicitly detailing misconceptions and
explainingthecorrectideas (Guzzetti etal., 1993). Presentinginformationinsuch format
has beenfound to alter students’ misconceptions in elementary, secondary andcollege level
structure(Alvermann&Hague,1989;Alvermann&Hynd,1989;Anderson&Smith,1986;
Diakidoy & Kendeou, 2001; Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003; Guzzetti, Williams,
Skeels, & Wu, 1997; Hynd & Alvermann, 1986; Lipson, 1982; Maria, 1988, as cited in
Reference Guzzetti et al., 1993; Maria & Johnson, 1989; Maria & MacGinitie, 1987).
Although the use of a refutation structure tends to be conducive of conceptual change,
it is not clear why this text structure is more effective than others—or, under what
circumstances it is. Consistent with Posner’s CCM (Posner et al., 1982), researchers have
speculated that refutation texts are effective because they create cognitive conflict
(Guzzetti et al., 1993), provide coherent and credible explanations (Hynd, McNish, Qian,
Keith, & Lay, 1994), or both (Guzzetti et al., 1997).
Understanding the mechanism by which refutation texts exert their influence is
important for several reasons. First,it allows ustodetermine exactly what requirementsa
successful refutation text needs to meet and thus to optimize the structure of these texts.
Second, by providing us insight into how conceptual change is accomplished in this
particular manner, it may suggest guiding principles for the development of methods for
achieving conceptual change other than through text structure. Third, it would foster the
development of a theory of the nature of the cognitive structures and processes that are
involved in misconceptions and their interaction with incoming new information.
In the following sections we explore the cognitive processes that may form the
foundationforthesuccessofrefutationtexts.Wefocusonanimportantcomponentofthe
processinginvokedbyrefutationtexts—co-activation—thatisnotincludedinthevarious
accountsofitssuccessandarguethatthiscomponentisindeedrequiredbeforestepssuch
asthosedetailedintheCCMcantakeplace.Co-activationthusisl