Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 51-74

  Maier, Johanna ^a   Richter, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Beliefs; Metacognition; Motivation; Multiple text comprehension; Validation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901831486     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Amstad, T. (1978). Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? [How understandable are our newspapers?]. Switzerland: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Zürich
2. Baker, L. (1985). Differences in the standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 297-313
3. Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38
4. Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281-294
5. Baker, L., & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373-388). New York: Routledge
6. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman
7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman
9. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99
10. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
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). Mawah: Erlbaum
12. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522
13. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale: Erlbaum
15. Donovan, J. J., & Williams, K. J. (2003). Missing the mark: effects of time and causal attributions on goal revision in response to goal-performance discrepancies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 379-390
16. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich
17. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191
18. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale: Erlbaum
19. Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer
20. Hasselhorn, M. (1996). Kategoriales Organisieren bei Kindern: Zur Entwicklung einer Gedächtnisstrategie [Categorial organization in children: On the development of a memory strategy]. Göttingen: Hogrefe
21. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453-467
22. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2013a). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15-22
23. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2013b). Comprehension and validation: separable stages of information processing? A case for epistemic monitoring in language comprehension. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Boston: MIT Press
24. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: when discredited information in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436
25. Kardash, C. A. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1995). Effects of pre-existing beliefs and repeated readings on belief change, comprehension, and recall of persuasive text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 201-221
26. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182
27. Krenn, B., Würth, S., & Hergovich, A. (2013). The impact of feedback on goal setting and task performance. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 79-89
28. Limon, M., & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Amsterdam: Kluwer
29. Lombardi, D. A. (2012). Students' Conceptions about climate change: using critical evaluation to influence plausibility reappraisals and knowledge reconstruction. Las Vegas: Unpublished dissertation, University of Nevada.
30. Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle-school students' climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27, 50-62
31. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629
32. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38, 607-633
33. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013a). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151-175
34. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013b). How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues: the role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14-26
35. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2000). Designing experiments and analyzing data: a model comparison perspective. Mawah: Erlbaum
36. Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690
37. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220
38. Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492-504
39. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316
40. 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 representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mawah: Erlbaum
41. Phillips, J. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Prevalence and prediction of positive discrepancy creation: examining a discrepancy between two self-regulation theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 498-511
42. Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S., & Tordesillas, R. S. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 408-419
43. Pratkanis, A. R. (1989). The cognitive representation of attitudes. In R. Pratkanis, S. Breckler, & S. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 70-98). Hillsdale: Erlbaum
44. Rapp, D., & Mensink, M. (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). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers
45. Richter, T. (2011). Cognitive flexibility and epistemic validation in learning from multiple texts. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility (pp. 125-140). Berlin: Springer
46. Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47-65
47. Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don't have to believe everything you read: background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538-598
48. Richter, T., & van Holt, N. (2005). ELVES: Ein computergestütztes Diagnostikum zur Erfassung der Effizienz von Teilprozessen des Leseverstehens. Diagnostica, 51, 169-182
49. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892
50. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: from text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum
51. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum
52. Schmalhofer, F., & Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer's manual: verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 279-294
53. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237-259
54. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. (2009). Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications. New York: Routledge
55. Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574-591
56. Smith, D. A., & Graesser, A. C. (1981). Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task. Memory and Cognition, 9, 550-559
57. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2004). Laypersons searching the WWW for medical information: the role of metacognition. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Reiger (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society (p. 1638). Mahwah: Erlbaum
58. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: the role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191-210.
59. Stiftung Warentest (2012). Online-Umfrage Impfen: Ergebnisse im Detail [Online survey on vaccinations: Detailed results] [Online document]. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://www.test.de/Online-Umfrage-Impfen-Ergebnisse-im-Detail-4371826-0/
60. Strømsø, H., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: the relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning & Instruction, 20, 192-204.
61. Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 692-701.
62. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
63. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
64. Walsh, C. R., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2009). Changing your mind. Memory & Cognition, 37, 624-631.
65. 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, 73-87.
66. Wiley, J. (2005). A fair and balanced look at the news: what affects memory for controversial arguments? Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 95-109.
67. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic.