Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 356-381

  Goldma, Susan R ^a   Braasch, Jason L G ^b   Wiley, Jennifer ^c   Graesser, Arthur C ^d   Brodowinska, Kamila ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869198461     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/RRQ.027     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 286-303. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.004
2. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A.M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319-339). New York: Routledge.
3. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2(1), 3-23. doi:10.1177/0741088385002001001
4. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Braasch, J.L.G., Lawless, K.A., Goldman, S.R., Manning, F.H., Gomez, K.W., & MacLeod, S.M. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students' use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 63-82. doi:10.2190/EC.41.1.c
6. 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(1), 6-28. doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1
7. Brem, S.K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Evaluation of scientific arguments by a lay audience. Discourse Processes, 32(2), 191-213.
8. Britt, M.A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004-2 (Pubitemid 36593950)
9. Chafe, W.L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Chi, M.T.H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271- 315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603-1 (Pubitemid 127493191)
11. Chi, M.T.H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Chi, M.T.H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
13. Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001 (Pubitemid 37230332)
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade ski l led readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. doi:10.1598/RRQ .42.2.2
16. Coté, N., & Goldman, S.R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 151- 174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Coté, N., Goldman, S.R., & Saul, E.U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1-53. doi:10.1080/01638539809545019 (Pubitemid 128752417)
18. Ferguson, L.E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 103-120. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
19. Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 220-231. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.005
20. Gobert, J.D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937-977. doi: 10.1080/095006900416857
21. 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. 317-352). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
22. Goldman, S.R. (with Lawless, K.A., Gomez, K.W., Braasch, J., MacLeod, 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: Guilford.
23. Goldman, S.R., & Rakestraw, J.A., Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311-335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Goldman, S.R., & Saul, E.U. (1990). Flexibility in text processing: A strategy competition model. Learning and Individual Differences, 2(2), 181-219. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(90)90022-9
25. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371 (Pubitemid 24976808)
26. 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(2/3), 89-105. doi:10.1007/s11409-007- 9013-x
27. Griffin, T.D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. (in press). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. New York: Springer Science.
28. Griff in, 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(1), 93-103. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.93 (Pubitemid 351927944)
29. Hartman, D.K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561. doi:10.2307/747631
30. Hemmerich, J.A., & Wiley, J. (2002). Do argumentation tasks promote conceptual change about volcanoes? In W.D. Gray & C.D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 453-458). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from www.pewinternet.org/~/ media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP-College-Report.pdf.pdf
32. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75-95. doi: 10.2190/EC.39.1.e
33. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
34. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285-328. doi:10.3102/00346543075003285 (Pubitemid 41442064)
36. Lawless, K.A., Goldman, S.R., Gomez, K., Manning, F., & Braasch, J. (in press). Assessing multiple source comprehension through evidence centered design. In J.P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Reaching an understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
37. Leinhardt, G., & Young, K.M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441-486. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1404-2 (Pubitemid 126337960)
38. Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/ Reports/2001/PIP-Teens-Report.pdf.pdf
39. Leu, D.J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D.K., Henry, L.A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C.C. Block & S.R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 321-346). New York: Guilford.
40. Magliano, J.P., & Millis, K.K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 251-283. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2103-02 (Pubitemid 37083842)
41. Marshak, S. (2001). Earth: Portrait of a planet. New York: W.W. Norton.
42. Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their inf luence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137-151. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2010.01.001
43. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38(6), 607-633. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9089-y
44. McNamara, D.S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1-30. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3801-1
45. McNamara, D.S., & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 60-81). New York: Routledge.
46. Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1
47. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D.S. (2010). Contributions of self-explanation to comprehension of highand low-cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47(8), 641-667. doi:10.1080/01638531003628809
48. Perfetti, C.A., Rouet, J., & Britt, M.A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 88-108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Rouet, J. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rouet, J., & Britt, M.A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M.T. McCrudden, J.P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19-52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
50. Rouet, J., Favart, M., Britt, M.A., & Perfetti, C.A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85-106. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1501-3 (Pubitemid 127360697)
51. 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, N.B. Songer, & D.T. Hickey (Eds.), Making a Difference: Vol. 1. The proceedings of the seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 662-666). New York: Routledge.
52. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
53. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2004). Laypersons searching for medical information on the Web: The role of metacognition. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1638), Chicago: Erlbaum.
54. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 191-210. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3
55. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the Web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 716-737. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023 (Pubitemid 351305127)
56. Strømsø, H.I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M.S. (2003). Students' strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 113-147. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2102-01 (Pubitemid 36844275)
57. Thiede, K.W., Anderson, M.C.M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66-73. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66 (Pubitemid 36338973)
58. Thiede, K.W., Redford, J.S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T.D. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may inf luence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0028660
59. Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). "It should at least seem scientific!" Textual features of "scientificness" and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 187-211. doi:10.1002/sce.20480
60. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R.F. Lorch, Jr., & E.J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353-373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Wallace, R.M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75-104. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0901-5
62. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234-246. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2008.08.003
63. Wiley, J., Ash, I.K., Sanchez, C.A., & Jaeger, A. (2011). Clarifying goals of reading for understanding from expository science text. In M.T. McCrudden, J.P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 353-374). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
64. Wiley, J., Goldman, S.R., Graesser, A.C., Sanchez, C.A., Ash, I.K., & Hemmerich, J.A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060-1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
65. Wiley, J., Griff in, T.D., & Thiede, K.W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408-428. doi:10.3200/GENP.132.4.408-428 (Pubitemid 41560725)
66. 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(2), 301-311. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
67. 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(1), 73-87. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.83.1.73
68. Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319-346. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2203-3 (Pubitemid 128179874)
69. Winne, P.H., & Hadwin, A.F. (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.
70. Wolfe, M.B.W., & Goldman, S.R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2304-2 (Pubitemid 43082512)
71. 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(6), 689-725. doi:10.1080/ 09500690305018 (Pubitemid 37496926)