Students' flawed conceptions can often be corrected during learning by successive contradictions from text sentences, allowing them to revise or replace their individual false beliefs as they read a text. Although this process supports learning new knowledge at a local level (i.e., individual propositions) it is less effective in facilitating systemic conceptual change. In contrast, constructive processes such as self-explaining can facilitate conceptual change through building a mental model from cumulative revisions of individual false beliefs. In the current experiment, I investigated whether comparing and contrasting examples can achieve the same outcome. Students (n=22) in the compare group were first shown a diagram of with their own flawed mental model, and then asked to compare it with a diagram of the correct model. This condition was compared with self-explaining the correct diagram (n=22), and a control condition in which students simply read the text twice (n=20). Results showed that the compare group performed better than the other two groups on questions requiring deep inference making
