Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays

British Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 58-85

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONFLICT; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; NORWAY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; READING; SCIENCE; STUDENT; WRITING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; COGNITION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; NORWAY; READING; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; WRITING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894093952     PISSN: 00070998     EISSN: 20448279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12005     Document Type: Article

References (89)

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. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745-1765. doi:10.1080/09500690601075629
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/default.htm
4. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39, 31-42. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4
5. Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69-80. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_7
6. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber.
7. Björnsson, C. H. (1983). Readability of newspapers in 11 languages. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 480-497.
8. 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.
9. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48-70. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
10. 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. doi:10.1007/s11218-009-9097-z
11. 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. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9091-4
12. 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. doi:10.1598/rrq.41.1.1
13. 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. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.001
14. Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 794-810. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0
15. 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
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. 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. 423-441). New York: Springer.
18. Chandler, M. J., Hallett, D., & Sokol, B. W. (2002). Competing claims about competing knowledge claims. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 145-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. 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. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
21. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
22. 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. doi:10.1080/01638539809545019
23. Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Greer, R. (1995). The effect of skew on the magnitude of product-moment correlations. Journal of General Psychology, 122, 365-377.
24. Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 78-107). New York: Routledge.
25. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
26. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215
27. 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, 103-120. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
28. Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils' evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105-118. doi:10.1348/000709904X22278
29. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. M. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356-381. doi:10.1002/RRQ.027
30. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142-160. doi:10.1080/00461520802178458
31. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students' self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45, 245-257. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.515932
32. Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2012) Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01536.x
33. Hand, B. (Ed.) (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
34. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5
35. 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.
36. Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Internet-specific epistemic beliefs predict users' source monitoring during Web search. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG meeting on Comprehension of Text and Graphics, Tübingen, Germany.
37. Khurana, V. G., Teo, C., Kundi, M., Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2009). Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology, 72, 205-214. doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2009.01.019
38. 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. doi:10.1348/000709907X268589
39. 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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.004
40. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. Kitchener, R. F. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89-105. doi:10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00003-X
42. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.001S
44. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7
45. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545-552. doi:10.1177/0956797611402512
46. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentative discourse. Discourse Processing, 48, 26-49. doi:10.1080/01638531003653344
47. Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Larson, A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339-365.
49. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Long, D. L., & Bourg, T. (1996). Thinking aloud: Telling a story about a story. Discourse Processes, 21, 329-339. doi:10.1080/01638539609544961
51. 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.
52. Mason, L., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Critical thinking about biology during Web page reading: Tracking students' evaluation of sources and information through eye fixations. In L. Verschaffel, E. de Corte, T. de Jong & J. Elen (Eds.), Use of external representations in reasoning and problem solving. London, UK: Routledge.
53. 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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001
54. 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: Springer.
55. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010a). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 67-90. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2
56. 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. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9089-y
57. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about contrioversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492-509. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007
58. Miles, J. N. V., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London, UK: Sage.
59. 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. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6
60. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123-145. doi:10.1177/09636625030122001
61. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 1977-1999. doi:10.1080/09500690701545919
62. 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.
63. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader's world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317-327. doi:10.1080/095006999290723
64. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319-334). New York: Guilford.
66. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. Elementary School Journal, 107, 449-472. doi:10.1086/518623
67. 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. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001
68. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
69. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
70. Schraw, G. (2010). Measuring self-regulation in computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45, 258-266. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010515936
71. Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.016
72. 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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001
73. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Do students' beliefs about knowledge and knowing predict their judgment of texts' trustworthiness? Educational Psychology, 31, 177-206. doi:10.1080/01443410.2010.538039
74. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (in press). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction.
75. 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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.11.001
76. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
77. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
78. 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. doi:10.1348/000709906X169012
79. Tsai, C.-C. (2008). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 273-285). New York: Springer.
80. Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad, Norway: Institute for Journalism.
81. Walton, D. N. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13, 367-377.
82. Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world. Science, 328, 448-450. doi:10.1126/science.1182596
83. Weinstock, M. (2006). Psychological research and the epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 26, 103-120.
84. Weinstock, M., & Cronin, M. A. (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 161-181. doi:10.1002/acp.860
85. Weinstock, M. P., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 327-341. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.327
86. 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, 1060-1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
87. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183-209. doi:10.1177/0741088309333019
88. Yang, F. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). An epistemic framework for scientific reasoning in informal contexts. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom (pp. 124-162). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89. 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, 689-725. doi:10.1080/09500690305018