Should we Tell Teachers That They Are (In)Correct? How Personalized Refutation Text Promotes or Hampers Conceptual Change

Abstract In-service and student teachers often hold math-gender misconceptions of female learners’ lower levels of mathematical talent. Such misconceptions are related to the math-gender stereotype that shapes how teachers interact with students and can contribute to the underrepresentation of women in mathematical fields. One method for reducing these misconceptions is refutation texts, which explicitly state and refute a misconception before providing an alternate explanation. Since refutation texts alone may not be sufficient to incite conceptual change among teachers, we presented them with an adaptive personalized feedback, which can enhance conceptual change effects. Yet, teachers’ identity may be related to math-gender misconceptions, which might cause worldview backfire effects where teachers double down on their original stance due to identity threat induced by an attempted refutation. In a randomized 2×2-pre-post-design with 336 in-service and student teachers, we investigated whether (1) expository texts, (2) personalized expository texts, (3) common refutation texts, or (4) personalized refutation texts were most effective for conceptual change. We found that personalized refutation texts initiated the strongest conceptual change for teachers who had held misconceptions at pre-test, but triggered the most backfire among those who did not. Findings suggest that personalized refutation texts effectively enhance teachers’ conceptual change when misconceptions are present. However, if misconceptions are not prevalent, personalized refutation text may lead to familiarity backfire; by repeatedly naming a misconception, it gains familiarity and becomes more credible than the intended refutation information. Hence, we recommend that personalized (refutation) interventions be adapted to individuals’ prior knowledge and misconceptions.