Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions

Journal of Research in Reading

Volumn 37, Issue SUPPL1, 2014, Pages

  Hagen, Åste M ^a   Braasch, Jason L G ^a   Bråten, Ivar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896314352     PISSN: 01410423     EISSN: 14679817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01536.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anmarkrud, Ø. & Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 252-256. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002.
2. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H.I. (2012). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Submitted.
3. Bråten, I. & Anmarkrud, Ø. (in press). Does naturally occurring comprehension strategies instruction make a difference when students read expository text? Journal of Research in Reading. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01489.x.
4. 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.), Text relevance and learning from text. (pp. 95-122). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
5. Bråten, I. & Samuelstuen, M.S. (2007). Measuring strategic processing: Comparing task-specific self-reports to traces. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 1-20. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9004-y.
6. 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. doi:10.1080/01638530902959646.
7. Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H.I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 111-130. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7.
8. 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.
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. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.001.
10. 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. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. 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.
12. Britt, M.A. & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25, 313-339. doi:10.1080/02702710490522658.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). New York: Academic Press.
14. Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215.
15. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906.
16. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E. & Strømsø, H.I. (2010a). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30-68. doi:10.1080/02702710902733600.
17. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E. & Strømsø, H.I. (2010b). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157-173. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002.
18. Goldman, S.R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Ferris & D.M. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research. (pp. 313-347): Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
19. Goldman, S.R. (2011). Choosing and using multiple information sources: Some new findings and emergent issues. Learning and Instruction, 21, 238-242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.006.
20. Goldman, S.R., Braasch, J.L.G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A.C. & Brodowinska, K.M. (in press). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly.
21. Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A.C. (2009a). A growing sense of 'agency'. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. (pp. 1-4). New York: Routledge.
22. Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.) (2009b). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge.
23. Kiewra, K.A., Dubois, N.F., Christensen, M., Kim S. & Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Science, 18, 217-232. doi:10.1007/BF00053360.
24. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kobayashi, K. (2009a). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37, 311-324. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9041-6.
26. Kobayashi, K. (2009b). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students' comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 130-134. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001.
27. 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. doi:10.1080/10862960701675317.
28. McNamara, D.S. (2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and successes. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 195-203. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9082-8.
29. McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J.P. (2009a). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In J.D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. (pp. 60-81). New York: Routledge.
30. McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J.P. (2009b). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297-384). New York: Elsevier.
31. Robinson, D.H. & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399-415. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1029.
32. Rouet, J.F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. 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.
34. Samuelstuen, M.S. & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00441.x.
35. Samuelstuen, M.S. & Bråten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students' strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 351-378. doi:10.1348/000709906X106147.
36. Schellings, G. (2011). Applying learning strategy questionnaires: Problems and possibilities. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 91-109. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9069-5.
37. Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1-20. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0980.
38. 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. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5.
39. Strømsø, H. I. & Bråten, I. (2010). Learning from multiple information sources. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. (Vol. 5, pp. 191-196). Oxford: Elsevier.
40. 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. doi:1207/s1532690xci2102_01.
41. 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.
42. Veenman, M.V.J. (2005). The assessment of metcognitive skills. What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Arelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis. (pp. 75-97). Berlin: Waxman.
43. Veenman, M.V.J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 205-211. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x.
44. 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.
45. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301.
46. Wolfe, M.B.W. & Goldman, S.R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2.