Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 111-130

  Bråten, Ivar ^a   Strømsø, Helge I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Measuring strategic processing; Multiple text comprehension; Multiple text comprehension strategies; Prior knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960703920     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7     Document Type: Article

References (64)

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: Routledge.
2. Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129-154.
3. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
4. Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 263-283.
5. Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (in press). Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. Learning and Instruction.
6. Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 252-256.
7. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber.
8. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 195-218.
9. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students' topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324-336.
10. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2007). Measuring strategic processing: comparing task-specific self-reports to traces. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 1-20.
11. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Bråten, I., Amundsen, A., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2010). Poor readers-good learners: a study of dyslexic readers learning with and without text. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 26, 166-187.
15. Bråten, I., Gil, L., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). 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.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
16. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48-70.
17. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180-192.
18. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 501-520). New York: The Guilford Press.
19. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
20. Garner, R. (1987). Strategies for reading and studying expository text. Educational Psychologist, 22, 299-312.
21. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157-173.
22. 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: Information Age Publishing.
23. Hagen, Å., 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.
24. Hyönä, J., Radach, R., & Deubel, H. (Eds.). (2003). The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
25. Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26, 335-362.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629.
29. Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113-119.
30. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies. New York: Erlbaum.
31. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: the role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270-298.
32. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. User's guide (Version 6). Los Angeles: Author.
33. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.
34. Naumann, A. B., Wechsung, I., & Krems, J. F. (2009). How to support learning from multiple hypertext sources. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 639-646.
35. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
36. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37.
37. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
38. Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhaustive within- and between-study analyses of think aloud data. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 261-296). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
39. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
40. Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265-286). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
41. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
42. Royer, J. M., Carlo, M. S., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 373-408.
43. Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-117.
44. Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students' strategic processing. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 351-378.
45. 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.
46. Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Taylor, K. L., & Dionne, J. P. (2000). Accessing problem-solving strategy knowledge: the complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 413-425.
51. Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 176-200). New York: Guilford Press.
52. 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: Erlbaum.
53. VanSledright, B. (2002). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
54. VanSledright, B., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: the influence on multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 239-265.
55. Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad: Institute for Journalism.
56. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Williams, J. P. (1993). Comprehension of students with and without learning disabilities: identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 631-641.
60. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
61. 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.
62. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students' calibration of knowledge and learning processes: implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 468-488.
63. Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5-17.
64. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.