Reading information about a scientific phenomenon on webpages varying for reliability: an eye-movement analysis

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 62, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 663-685

  Mason, Lucia ^a   Pluchino, Patrik ^a   Ariasi, Nicola ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cognitive processing; Eye movements; Internet; Internet reading; Source evaluation; Web based learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920142203     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-014-9356-3     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2013). Teachers’ source evaluation self-efficacy predicts their use of relevant source features when evaluating the trustworthiness of web sources on special education. British Journal of Technology,44(5), 821–836. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01366.x.
2. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction,30(1), 39–85. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.636495.
3. Braasch, J. L. G., Bräten, I., Strømsø, H., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology,38(3), 180–195. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003.
4. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet. Computers & Education,53, 1207–1217. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004.
5. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011a). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist,46(1), 48–70. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647.
6. 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(6), 635–657. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9091-4.
7. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011b). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction,21(2), 180–192. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.002.
8. Clark, D. B., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the Internet: the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education,22, 859–871. doi:10.1080/095006900412310.
9. Crick, F. (1970). Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature,227, 561–563.
10. Cromley, J., & Azvedo, R. (2006). Locating information within extended hypermedia. Educational Technology Research and Development,57(3), 287–313. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9106-5.
11. Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction,28, 48–63. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.003.
12. Ferguson, L., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction,25, 49–61. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003.
13. Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction,21(2), 220–231. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.005.
14. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012a). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly,47(4), 356–381. doi:10.1002/RRQ.027.
15. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., Pellegrino, J., Manning, F., Braasch, J., & Gomez, K. (2012b). A technology for assessing multiple source comprehension: An essential skill of the 21st century. In M. C. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, D. H. Robinson, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp. 173–209). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
16. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist,43(3), 142–160. doi:10.1080/00461520802178458.
17. Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centered, web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,57(6), 767–785. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9117-x.
18. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology,24, 95–123. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0987.
19. Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web. Educational Technology Research and Development,45(4), 37–64.
20. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 378–405.
21. 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.
22. 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(1), 88–140.
23. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & G. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
24. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction,20, 146–154. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019.
25. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review,87, 329–354.
26. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixation in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,3, 447–457. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.447.
27. Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior,29(3), 1193–1203. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.012.
28. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and Internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during Web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behavior & Information Technology,31(1), 83–97. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2011.599040.
29. 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(2), 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.004.
30. 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.
31. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research,75, 285–313. doi:10.3102/00346543075003285.
32. Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,48(1), 1042–1629.
33. Lorenzen, M. (2002). The land of confusion? High school students and their use of the World Wide Web for research. Research Strategies,18, 151–163.
34. Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. L. G., Britt, A. M., & Rouet, J.-F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction,31(2), 204–226. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769995.
35. 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 representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement (pp. 55–73). New York: Routledge.
36. Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction,21(1), 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001.
37. 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.
38. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010a). Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning,5(1), 67–90. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2.
39. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010b). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science,38(6), 607–633. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9089-y.
40. 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016.
41. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013a). Effects of picture labeling on illustrated science text processing and learning: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Research Quarterly,48(2), 199–214. doi:10.1002/rrq.41.
42. Mason, L., Tornatora, M.C., & Pluchino, P. (2013b). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from Eye-Movement Patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109. doi.10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011
43. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review,18, 3–54. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6.
44. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction,19(3), 228–242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003.
45. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning,3, 17–37. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9008-7.
46. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin,124(3), 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
47. Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning,5(1), 47–65. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9038-4.
48. 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(3), 538–558. doi:10.1037/a0014038.
49. Rouet, J.-F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Dinet, J. (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on primary and secondary school students’ assessment of relevance in web menus. Learning and Instruction,21(2), 205–219. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.007.
50. Salmerón, L., Kammer, Y., & García-Carrión, P. (2013). Searching the Web for conflicting topics: Page and user factors. Computers in Human Behavior,29, 2161–2171. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.034.
51. Schacter, J., Chung, G., & Dorr, A. (1998). Children’s Internet searching on complex problems: Performance and process analyses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,49, 840–849.
52. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., McElvany, N., Hachfeld, A., Baumert, J., Schnotz, W., et al. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students’ engagement in learning from texts with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction,21(3), 403–415. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.001.
53. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior,24(3), 716–737. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023.
54. Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Robinson, D (Eds.). (2013). Learning trough visual displays. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
55. Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction,17(6), 773–785. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.016.
56. 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(6), 513–527. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.11.001.
57. Trautwein, U., & Lu¨dtke, O., (2007). Predicting global and topic-specific certainty beliefs: Domain-specificity and the role of the academic environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology,77(4), 907–934. doi:10.1348/000709906X169012.
58. Tsai, C. C. (2004). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: the use of Internet as an “epistemological” tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology,35, 525–536. doi:10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00411.x.
59. van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction,20(2), 146–154. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019.
60. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning,1(1), 3–14. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.
61. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior,24(3), 623–648. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.030.
62. 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(1), 234–246. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003.
63. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behaviour while searching the internet. Instructional Science, 41(1), 125–146. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9221-x
64. Wang, J. C., & Day, R. F. (2007). The effects of attention inertia on advertisements on the Computers in Human Behavior,23, 1390–1407. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.014.
65. 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(4), 1060–1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183.