Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts?

Computers and Education

Volumn 82, Issue , 2015, Pages 442-449

  Keck, Daniel ^a   Kammerer, Yvonne ^b   Starauschek, Erich ^a  

^a LUDWIGSBURG UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Germany)

^b KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Identification of contradictions; Internet; Online reading; Science text comprehension; Source information

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; INTERNET; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE); STUDENTS;

AUTHORITATIVE WEBSITE; CONFLICT VERIFICATION; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS; INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS; ONLINE READINGS; PILOT STUDIES; SOURCE INFORMATION; TEXT COMPREHENSIONS;

WEBSITES;

EID: 84920087185     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Acar Sesen, B. (2010). Internet as a source of misconception: "Radiation and radioactivity". TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 94-100.
2. Amstad, T. (1978). Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? [How understandable are our newspapers?] University of Zürich. unpublished doctoral dissertation.
3. August, D. L., Flavell, J. H., & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 39-45.
4. Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusion. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
5. Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.
6. Bonitatibus, G., Godshall, S., Kelley, M., Levering, T., & Lynch, E. (1988). The role of social cognition in comprehension monitoring. First Language, 8, 287-298.
7. Braasch, J. L. G., Bra˚ten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students' evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 180-195.
8. Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers' use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450-465.
9. Ehrlich, S., Sporte, S., & Sebring, P. (2013). The use of technology in Chicago public schools 2011: Perspectives from students, teachers, and principals. Retrieved from https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/use-technology-chicago-public-schools-2011-perspectives-students-teachers-and.
10. Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media Society, 9, 319-342.
11. García-Arista, E., Campanario, J., & Otero, J. (1996). Influence of subject matter setting on comprehension monitoring. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 427-441.
12. Geller, C., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2010). Was Mittelstufenschüler über Elektrizität wissen - ein Ländervergleich [What do junior high-school students know about electricity - a comparison between different countries]. In D. Höttecke (Ed.), Entwicklung naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens zwischen Phänomen und Systematik (pp. 389-391). Berlin: Lit.
13. Gerjets, P., & Hellenthal-Schorr, T. (2008). Competent information search in the World Wide Web: development and evaluation of a web training for pupils. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 693-715.
14. Grabe, M., Antes, J., Kahn, H., & Kristjanson, A. (1991). Adult and adolescent readers' comprehension monitoring performance: an investigation of monitoring accuracy and related eye movements. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 45-60.
15. Halliday, D. (2009). Halliday Physik [Halliday physics]. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
16. Hoyer, M., Huth, N., & Spahr, C. (2011). Jugend 2.0: Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zum Internetverhalten von 10- bis 18-Jährigen [ Youth 2.0: A representative survey on the use of the Internet among ten to eighteen year old adolescents]. from http://www.bitkom.org/files/documents/BITKOM-Studie-Jugend-2.0.pdf.
17. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). The impact of discrepancies across Web pages on high-school students' trustworthiness evaluations. In E. de Vries, & K. Scheiter (Eds.), Proceedings EARLI Special Interest Group Text and Graphics: Staging knowledge and experience: How to take advantage of representational technologies in education and training? (pp. 97-99). Grenoble, France: Université Pierre-Mendès-France.
18. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Quellenbewertungen und Quellenverweise beim Lesen und Zusammenfassen wissenschaftsbezogener Informationen aus multiplen Webseiten [Source evaluations and source references when reading and summarizing science-related information from multiple web pages]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 42, 7-23.
19. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for Cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kuo, F.-R., Chen, N.-S., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). A creative thinking approach to enhancing the web-based problem solving performance of university students. Computers & Education, 72, 220-230.
21. Kuo, F.-R., Hwang, G.-J., & Lee, C.-C. (2012). A hybrid approach to promoting students' web-based problem-solving competence and learning attitude. Computers & Education, 58, 351-364.
22. Mason, L., Junyent, A. A., & Tornatora, M. C. (2014). Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers & Education, 76, 143-157.
23. Otero, J., & Campanario, J. (1990). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 447-460.
24. Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: what readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235.
25. Rieh, Y. S. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145-161.
26. Royer, J. M. (2001). Developing reading and listening comprehension tests based on the Sentence Verification Technique (SVT). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 30-41.
27. Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M., & Ennemoser, M. (2007). LGVT 6-12 - Lesegeschwindigkeits und -verständnistest für die Klassen 6-12 [LGVT 6-12 - An inventory for the assessment of reading-speed and text comprehension for high school students]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
28. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content-source integration model: a taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp, & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379-402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2012). Does relevance matter in comprehending scientific conflicts from multiple documents? Evidence from online and offline data. In E. de Vries, & K. Scheiter (Eds.), Proceedings EARLI Special Interest Group Text and Graphics: Staging knowledge and experience: How to take advantage of representational technologies in education and training? (pp. 202-204). Grenoble, France: Université Pierre-Mendès-France.
30. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: readers' memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130-150.
31. Stadtler, M., Thomm, E., Babiel, S., Hentschke, J., & Bromme, R. (2013, October). Ignorant albeit competent - Examining students' sourcing competencies and spontaneous use of source information while reading conflicting scientific texts. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Document Literacy, Münster, Germany.
32. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52, 234-246.
33. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2013). Fostering students' evaluation behaviour while searching the Internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125-146.
34. Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez, C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106.
35. Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. (1982). Comprehension monitoring and the error detection paradigm. Journal of Literacy Research, 14, 61-76.
36. Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2010). Information selection in the blogosphere: the effect of expertise, community rating, and age. In S. Ohlsson, & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 802-807). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.