The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 48-70

  Bråten, Ivar ^a   Britt, M Anne ^b   Strømsø, Helge I ^a   Rouet, Jean François ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78951479807     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538647     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69-90). New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., & Moos, D. C. (2007). The effect of a human agent's external regulation upon college students' hypermedia learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 67-87.
3. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-23.
4. Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69-80.
5. Bråten, I. (2008). Personal epistemology, understanding of multiple texts, and learning within Internet technologies. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 351-376). New York, NY: Springer.
6. Bråten, I. (2010). Personal epistemology in education: Concepts, issues, and implications. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 5, pp. 211-217). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
7. Bråten, I., Gil, L., Storey, J., Strømsø, H. I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Britt, M. A. (2008, March). Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring the dimensionality of topic-specific epistemic beliefs in Norway, Spain, and the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.
8. Bråten, I., Gil, L., & Strømsø, H. I. (in press). The role of different task instructions and reader characteristics when learning from multiple expository texts. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
9. Bråten, I., Gil, L., Strømsø, H. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009). Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students' epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 529-560.
10. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2003).Alongitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 195-218.
11. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006a). Constructing meaning from multiple information sources as a function of personal epistemology: The role of text-processing strategies. Information Design Journal, 14, 56-67.
12. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006b). Effects of personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 27, 457-484.
13. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2007, November). Personal epistemology and multiple text comprehension: Effects of interactions between epistemic beliefs on students' deep-level comprehension of multiple texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, Texas.
14. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010a). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31.
15. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010b). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38, 635-657.
16. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6-28.
17. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmeŕon, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180-192.
18. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The relationship between Internet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within Internet technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 141-171.
19. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814-840.
20. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191-213.
21. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522.
22. Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749-810.
23. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C.A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative, comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (in press). Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J.Lawson&J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning: Dispostions, instruction, and mental structures. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25. Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004).Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students' essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 359-374.
26. Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students' epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 65-112). New York: Springer.
27. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001).Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385-418.
28. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students' domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697-726.
29. Cerd́an, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E.(2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222.
30. Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778-807.
31. Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34, 91-115.
32. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
33. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. A. (1979). Quasi-experimental design: Design and analysis issues. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
34. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
35. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980).Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
36. Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C.A. (1998). ''You're going towant to find outwhich and prove it'': Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527-548.
37. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. 2010a). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157-173.
38. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010b). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30-68.
39. Gil, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2008). Effects of task, topic-specific personal epistemology, and prior knowledge on superficial and deep understanding of multiple texts. In J. J. Cañas (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognition and the Web: Information Processing, Comprehension, and Learning (pp. 133-138).Granada, Spain:University of Granada.
40. Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
41. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., Gomez, K. W., Braasch, J., McLeod, S., & Manning, F. (2010). Literacy in the digital world: Comprehending and learning from multiple sources. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 257-284). New York, NY: Guilford.
42. Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
43. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142-160.
44. Greene, S. (1994). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29, 89-96.
45. Hagen, A., Strømsø, H. I., &Bråten, I. (2009, August). Epistemic beliefs and external strategy use when learning from multiple documents. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
46. Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the Internet age: Examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22-26.
47. Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers readingmultiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 520-561.
48. Hartman, D. K. (2004). Deconstructing the reader, the text, the author, and the context: Intertextuality and reading from a cognitive perspective. In N. Shuart-Faris&D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 353-371). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
49. Hayes-Roth, B., & Thorndyke, P.W. (1979). Integration of knowledge from text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 91-108.
50. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
51. Hofer, B. K. (2004a). Epistemological understanding as ametacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55.
52. Hofer, B. K. (2004b). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 129-163.
53. Hofer, B. K. (2004c). Introduction: Paradigmatic approaches to personal epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 39, 1-3.
54. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
55. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Hofer, B. K., & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: Musings on an emerging field. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 113-120.
57. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301-333.
58. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodrigues, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ''Doing the lesson'' or ''doing science'': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
59. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H. R., & Fischer, K. (1996). Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis, 16, 251-261.
60. Karabenick, S., & Moosa, S. (2005). Culture and personal epistemology: U.S. and Middle Eastern students' beliefs about scientific knowledge and knowing. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 375-393.
61. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
62. Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545-565.
63. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
64. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
65. Kolstø, S.D. (2001). ''To trust or not to trust,.''-Pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
66. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
68. Larson, A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339-365.
69. Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205-224.
70. Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students' comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 445-470.
71. Maggioni, L., & Fox, E. (2009, April). Adolescents' reading of multiple history texts: An interdisciplinary investigation of historical thinking, intertextual reading, and domain-specific epistemic beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
72. Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137-151.
73. Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context of information searching on the Web. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377-404). New York, NY: Springer.
74. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010a). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 67-90.
75. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010b). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38, 607-633.
76. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492-509.
77. Mason, L., Scirica, F., & Salvi, L. (2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 411-437.
78. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139.
79. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173-190.
80. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.
81. Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492-504.
82. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
83. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
84. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. Van Oostendorp&S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representation during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
85. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37.
86. Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 47-65.
87. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
88. Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (in press). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
89. Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Caroux, L., Nivet, C., & Le Bigot, L. (2009, August). The influence of story consistency and reading context on the construction of documents models from multiple sources. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
90. 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.
91. Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 272-287.
92. Sanchez, C. A., Wiley, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during Internet research tasks. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay,&D. T.Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 662-666). Bloomington, IN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
93. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
94. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2008). Applying the theory of an epistemological belief system to the investigation of students' and professors' mathematical beliefs. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 303-324).New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
95. Schraw, G. (2000). Reader beliefs and meaning construction in narrative text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 96-106.
96. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1996). Two epistemic worldviews: Prefigurative schemas and learning in complex domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S51-S61.
97. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.
98. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computertool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716-737.
99. Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785.
100. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2002). Norwegian law students' use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208-227.
101. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425-445.
102. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of Internet-based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 91-111.
103. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 192-204.
104. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (in press).Do students' beliefs about knowledge and knowing predict their judgment of texts' trustworthiness? Educational Psychology.
105. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students' strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 113-147.
106. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2007, July). Assessing comprehension of single and multiple texts by verification tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Glasgow, Scotland.
107. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I. & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513-527.
108. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12, 341-363.
109. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
110. Trautwein, U., & L̈udtke, O. (2007). Predicting global and topic-specific certainty beliefs: Domain-specificity and the role of the academic environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 907-934.
111. Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2005). Effects of instruction on changes in epsistemological beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 314-330.
112. van den Broek, R., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartman, E. (1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 354-374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
113. Van Meter, P. N., & Firetto, C. (2008). Intertextuality and the study of new literacies: Research critique and recommendations. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1079-1092). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
114. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106.
115. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of ''playing'' historian on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63-72.
116. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999).Constructing arguments frommultiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
117. Wineburg, 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.
118. Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.
119. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. E. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
120. Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Muis, K. R. (2002). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In P.R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 12: New directions in measures and methods (pp. 121-155). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
121. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 532-568). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
122. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.