Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1060-1106

  Wiley, Jennifer ^a   Goldman, Susan R ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b   Sanchez, Christopher A ^c   Ash, Ivan K ^d   Hemmerich, Joshua A ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b University of Memphis   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Discourse processes; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951454623     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831209333183     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 27-49.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Available at http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/ default.htm
3. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
4. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5-11.
5. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. London: Springer-Verlag.
6. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523-535.
7. Barrow, L., & Haskins, S. (1996). Earthquake knowledge and experiences of introductory geology students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 143-146.
8. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics-Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-23.
9. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
10. Berkencotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
12. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191-213.
13. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to use source information. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 485-522.
14. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Van Dyke, J., & Gabrys, G. (2000). The Sourcer's Apprentice: A tool for document-supported history instruction. In P. Stearns (Ed.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 437-470). New York: New York University Press.
15. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
18. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic reasoning in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
19. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
20. Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
21. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level reasoning questions effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition & Instruction, 24, 565-591.
22. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-241). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
23. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25. Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1994). Beliefs about text and about instruction with text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 937-977.
27. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Goldman, S. R., Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S., & Tzou, C. T. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital age: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital age (pp. 253-283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 247-269.
30. Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 524-536.
31. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
32. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
33. Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O'Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web Tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89-105.
34. Greene, S. (2004). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29, 89-96.
35. Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103.
36. Guthrie, J. T. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 178-199.
37. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Hemmerich, J., & Wiley, J. (2002). Do argumentation tasks promote conceptual change about volcanoes? In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 453-458). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55.
40. Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alverman, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893.
41. Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 29-32.
42. Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_ College_Report.pdf
43. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In Ac. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45. Korpan, C. A, Bisanz, G. L, Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science & Education, 81, 515-532.
46. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
47. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition & Instruction, 21, 251-283.
49. Marques, L., & Thompson, D. (1997). Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning continental drift and plate tectonics among Portuguese students aged 16-17. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15, 195-222.
50. Marschak, S. (2001). Earth: Portrait of a planet. New York: W.W. Norton.
51. McNamara, D. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
52. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 1-43.
53. Mosenthal, P. (1996). Understanding the strategies of document literacy and their conditions of use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 314-332.
54. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123-145.
55. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading strategy knowledge on more traditional "high-stakes" measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161-196.
56. Otero, J., Leon, J. A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1, 117-175.
58. Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second- hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., et al. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
61. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291-309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
63. Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19-33.
64. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235-244.
65. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
66. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478-493.
68. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition & Instruction, 15, 85-106.
69. Sanchez, C., & Wiley, J. (2006). Effects of working memory capacity on learning from illustrated text. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344-355.
70. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
71. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2000). The Knowledge Integration Environment: Helping students use the Internet effectively. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs, for technologies of learning (pp. 193-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
72. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of meta-cognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191-210.
73. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
74. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J. and Anderson, M. (in press). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes.
75. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. (in press). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. London: Routledge.
76. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory & Language, 24, 612-630.
77. Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 45-68.
78. Voss, J. F., & Wiley, J. (2006). Expertise in history. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 569-584). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
79. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, Ed. (2000). Science on the Web: Students on-line in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75-104.
80. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211-224.
81. Wiley, J. (2001). Supporting understanding through task and browser design. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82. Wiley, J., & Ash, I. (2005) Multimedia learning in history. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 375-391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83. Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005) Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408-428.
84. Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109-129.
85. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
86. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87.
87. Wineburg, S. S. (1994).The cognitive representation of historical texts. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
88. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
89. Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relationships between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 467-502.
90. Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 190-195.
91. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.