Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products

Instructional Science

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 873-894

  Anmarkrud, Øistein ^a   McCrudden, Matthew T ^b   Bråten, Ivar ^a   Strømsø, Helge I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Multiple documents literacy; Strategic processing; Task oriented reading; Text relevance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884157434     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Afflerbach, P. (2002). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 87-103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. 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.
3. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.
4. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber.
5. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (in press). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
6. 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 (pp. 95-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
7. 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.
8. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). 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.
9. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111-130.
10. Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749-810.
11. 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.
12. Burton, C., & Daneman, M. (2007). Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Psychology, 28, 163-186.
13. Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222.
14. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19, 13-27.
15. Cirilo, R. K., & Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 96-109.
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. 169-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Cote, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
18. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
19. Fletcher, C. R. (1986). Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 43-58.
20. 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.
21. Goldman, S. R., 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.
22. Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
23. Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (in press). Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies, and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading.
24. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239-257.
25. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2011). Online processing of and memory for perspective relevant and irrelevant text information. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 223-242). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
26. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4, 1-6.
28. Larson, A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339-365.
29. Lehman, S., & Schraw, G. (2002). Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 738-750.
30. Lewis, M. R., & Mensink, M. C. (2012). Prereading questions and online text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 49, 367-390.
31. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students' conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239-252.
32. Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 20, 193-232.
33. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283.
34. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629.
35. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals, and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 229-241.
36. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). Relevance in text comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 1-17). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
37. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139.
38. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549-565.
39. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59-92.
40. Rapp, D. N., & Mensink, M. C. (2011). Focusing effects from online and offline reading tasks. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 141-164). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
41. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The arguments schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319-334). New Yourk: Guilford.
42. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What's behind the numbers? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 219-224.
43. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Rouet, J.-F., & 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). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
45. Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Bert-Erboul, A., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31, 163-186.
46. Schraw, G., Wade, S. E., & Kardash, C. A. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 652-661.
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. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of arguments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
49. Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255-287.
50. van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. J. (2011). When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123-139). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
51. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F, Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.
52. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316.
53. 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 & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353-374). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817-826.
56. Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad, Norway: Institute for Journalism.
57. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerick, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Association Journal, 46, 1060-1106.
58. 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.
59. Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1-27.
60. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183-209.
61. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.
62. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289-327.