Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition

Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 276-314

  Anne Britt, M ^a   Rouet, Jean François ^b  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925633434     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139048224.017     Document Type: Chapter

References (69)

1. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning i n fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 87–111.
2. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning t he author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385–414.
3. Bjork, R. A., & Linn, M. C. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science: Introducing desirable dii culties. American Psychological Society Observer, 19, 29, 39.
4. Braasch, J. L., Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Knutsen, D., Le Bigot, L., & Vibert, N. (2010). Readers’ construction of document models from news stories: Evidence from eye m ovements. Paper presented at the EARLI Special Interest Group “Comprehension of Texts and Graphics” Conference, August, Tuebingen, Germany.
5. Bråten, I., Britt, M.A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs i n the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist.
6. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Effects of personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 27, 457–484.
7. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of s ource evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple t exts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6–28.
8. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always b etter? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814–840.
9. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of s cientii c arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213.
10. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving student’s ability to use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.
11. Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. (2002). Implications of document-level literacy skills for w eb-site design. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 170–176.
12. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52–84.
13. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source s eparation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C., Graesser, & P. van d en Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Van Dyke, J., & Gabrys, G. (2000). The Sourcer’s Apprentice: A tool for document-supported history instruction. In P. Stearns (Ed.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives. New York: NYU Press.
15. Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure f ocusing task. Reading Psychology, 25, 313–339.
16. Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hasting, P., Larson, A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Automated feedback o n source citation in essay writing. International Journal of Artii cial Intelligence in Education, 14, 359–374.
17. Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and ith graders representing the argument s tructure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34, 91–115.
18. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies u sed by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
19. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse i n science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
20. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.
21. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Understanding and integrating m ultiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30–68.
22. Golder, C. & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse Processes, 18, 187–210.
23. Goldman, S., Lawless, K., Gomez, K., Braasch, B., MacLeod, S., & Manning, F. (2010). Literacy in the Digital World: Comprehending and Learning from Multiple Sources. In M. G. McKeown, & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading researchers to life: Essays in h onor of Isabel Beck. New York: Guilford Press.
24. 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.
25. Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871.
27. Kim, J., & Millis, K. (2006). The influence of sourcing and relatedness on event integration. Discourse Processes, 41, 51–65.
28. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a constructionintegration m odel. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
29. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge U niversity Press.
30. Knudson, R. E. (1992). The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study Journal, 22, 167–184.
31. Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Discourse P rocesses, 18, 211–230.
32. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific t hinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
33. Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up p rocesses in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26, 335–362.
34. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal a rguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339–365.
35. Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative t exts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205–224.
36. 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.
37. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
38. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., Rouet, J-F., Georgi, M. C. & Mason, R. A. (1994). How students u se texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In M. Carretero & J.F. Voss (Eds.) Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents r epresentation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.
41. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37.
42. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M.T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age P ublishing.
44. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Caroux, L., Nivet, C., & Le Bigot, L. (2009). The influence of story consistency and reading context on the construction of documents models from multiple s ources. Paper presented at the 2009 EARLI Conference, August, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
45. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996).Using multiple sources of e vidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.
46. Rouet, J.-F., & Coutelet, B. (2008). The acquisition of information search skills by 9 to 13 year-old students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389–406.
47. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.
48. Rouet, J.-F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, A., & Dinet, J. (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on grade school students’ assessment of relevance in Web m enus. Learning and Instruction, 21, 205–219.
49. Rouet, J.-F., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2002). “Mining for meaning”: a cognitive examination of inserted questions in learning from scientific text. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 417–436). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Bert-Erboul, A. & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of information s earch tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31, 163–186.
51. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of p rompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.
52. Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Learning in a sheltered Internet environment: The u se of Webquests. Learning and Instruction, 19, 423–432.
53. Seixas, P. (1994). When psychologists discuss historical thinking: A historian’s perspective. Educational Psychologist, 29, 107–109.
54. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: Rand Reading Study Group.
55. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210.
56. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of l aypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737.
57. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary s chool children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multipletext comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425–445.
59. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and I nstruction, 18, 513–527.
60. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, 12, 341–363.
61. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Wiley, J. (2001). Supporting understanding through task and browser design. In P roceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1136–1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. 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.
64. Wiley, J., Grifin, T. D., & hiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428.
65. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks t hat promote understanding not just memory for text. Journal of Educational P sychology, 91, 301–311.
66. Wineburg S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used i n the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational P sychology, 83, 73–87.
67. Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni, & G. Potts (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Wineburg, S. S. (2000). Making historical sense. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 306–325). New York: NYU Press.
69. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside b ias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183–209.