# Overturning Children’s Misconceptions about Ruler Measurement: The Power of Disconfirming Evidence

## TL;DR

This study explores how to correct children's misconceptions about ruler measurement using disconfirming evidence and structural alignment techniques.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates disconfirming evidence and structural alignment as novel instructional tools for improving children's ruler measurement understanding.

## Key findings

- Children showed significant improvement with disconfirming evidence training.
- Combining structural alignment with disconfirming evidence led to faster and better retention of learning.
- Control and structural alignment alone did not significantly improve measurement understanding.

## Abstract

Children have persistent difficulty with foundational measurement concepts, which may be linked to the instruction they receive. Here, we focus on testing various ways to support their understanding that rulers comprise spatial interval units. We examined whether evidence-based learning tools—disconfirming evidence and/or structural alignment—enhance their understanding of ruler units. Disconfirming evidence, in this context, involves having children count the spatial interval units under an object that is not aligned with the origin of a ruler. Structural alignment, in this context, involves highlighting what a ruler unit is by overlaying plastic unit chips on top of ruler units when an object is aligned with the origin of a ruler. In three experiments employing a pre-test/training/post-test design, a total of 120 second graders were randomly assigned to one of six training conditions (two training conditions per experiment). The training conditions included different evidence-based learning principles or “business-as-usual” instruction (control), with equal allocation to each (N = 20 for each condition). In each experiment, children who did not perform above chance level on the pre-test were selected to continue with training, which resulted in a total of 88 students for the analysis of improvement. The children showed significant improvement in training conditions that included disconfirming evidence, but not in the structural alignment or control conditions. However, an exploratory analysis suggests that improvement occurred more rapidly and was retained better when structural alignment was combined with disconfirming evidence compared to disconfirming evidence alone.