Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 879-902

  Bråten, Ivar ^a   Ferguson, Leila E ^a   Strømsø, Helge I ^a   Anmarkrud, Øistein ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Adolescent readers; Epistemic beliefs; Justification for knowing; Multiple documents comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882770095     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69-90). New York: Routledge.
2. Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2011). Adolescents as readers. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. 4 (pp. 156-176). New York: Routledge.
3. Anderson, R. C. (2004). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 594-606). Newark: International Reading Association.
4. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber.
5. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Effects of personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 27, 457-484.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111-130.
9. 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.
10. Bråten, I., Gil, L., Strømsø, H. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009a). Personal epistemology across cultures: exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students' epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 529-560.
11. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009b). Trust matters: examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6-28.
12. Bråten, I., Britt, M.A., Strømsø, H. I., &Rouet, J. F. (2011a). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48-70.
13. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011b). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180-192.
14. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2012). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a science issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays (submitted).
15. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522.
16. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276-314). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. 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: Erlbaum.
18. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: an intimate but complicate relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 423-443). New York: Springer.
19. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemic beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. 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.
21. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385-418.
22. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students' domainspecific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697-726.
23. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
24. Chinn, C.A., & Buckland, L.A. (2012, April). A multiparameter framework for the design of assessments of epistemic cognition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
25. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167.
26. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
27. Coté, N. C., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
28. Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012a). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: a think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22, 103-120.
29. Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2012b). Dimensionality and change in epistemic beliefs when adolescents read conflicting information presented in multiple documents (submitted)
30. Fox, E. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research, 79, 197-261.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Goldman, S. R., Ozuru, Y., Braasch, J. L. G., Manning, F. H., Lawless, K. A., Gomez, K. W., & Slanovits, M. J. (2011). Literacies for learning: a multiple source comprehension illustration. In N. L. Stein & S. W. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 30-44). New York: Routledge.
34. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142-160.
35. Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 234-255.
36. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: student interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 129-163.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524-535.
40. Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260-271.
41. Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: the unexpected impact of short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545-565.
42. Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: when expert information breeds laypersons' doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193-204.
43. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Kobayashi, K. (2009). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students' comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 130-134.
45. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando: Academic.
46. 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.
47. Limon, M. (2006). The domain generality-specificity of epistemological beliefs: a theoretical problem, a methodological problem, or both? International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 7-27.
48. 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.
49. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010a). Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 67-90.
50. 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.
51. Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influences on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137-151.
52. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (Eds.). (2008). Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge: TheMIT Press.
53. Miles, J. N. V., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: a guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.
54. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: the role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270-298.
55. Mugalogu, E. Z., & Bayram, H. (2010). A structural model of prospective science teachers' nature of science views. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 597-614.
56. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: philosophical and empirical questions in the development of a theoretical model. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.
57. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process: an investigation of individual and intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 337-363.
58. Murphy, P. K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 305-324). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
59. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2006). Læreplan for grunnskolen og videregående skole [Curriculum for elementary and secondary school]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research.
60. Paxton, R. J. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school students solving a historical problem. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 197-248.
61. 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: Erlbaum.
62. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37.
63. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: from text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
64. 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.
65. Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.
66. 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.
67. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
68. Schommer, M., & Dunnell, P. A. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 19, 153-156.
69. Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 424-432.
70. Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435-443.
71. Schraw, G. (2000). Reader beliefs and meaning construction in narrative text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 96-106.
72. Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261-275). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
73. 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.
74. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1994). Cognitive flexibility theory: advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 602-615). Newark: International Reading Association.
75. Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: an instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785.
76. 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.
77. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425-445.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
81. 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, 187-211.
82. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, 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.
83. Tsai, C. C., Ho, H. N. J., Liang, J. C., & Lin, H. M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757-769.
84. VanSledright, B., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: the influence on multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 239-265.
85. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Mañá, A., Llorens, A., & Ferris, R. (2011). Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 179-192.
86. Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad: Institute for Journalism.
87. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of "playing" historian on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63-72.
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.