The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on norwegian students' document selection: A mixed methods study

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 108, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 147-162

  McCrudden, Matthew T ^a   Stenseth, Tonje ^b   Bråten, Ivar ^b   Strømsø, Helge I ^b  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Author expertise; Content relevance; Multiple documents; Sequential explanatory mixed methods design; Source credibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956579773     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000057     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Alexander, P. A.,&Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01761832
2. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M.,&Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 313-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002313
3. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I.,&Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
4. Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I.,&Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41, 873-894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
5. Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003
6. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I.,&Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
7. Bråten, I., Gil, L., Strømsø, H. I.,&Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009). Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students' epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 529-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9097-z
8. Bråten, I.,&Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on self-reports of strategic text processing depend on students' topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.324
9. 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, 635-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9091-4
10. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1
11. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I.,&Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.002
12. Braun, V.,&Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
13. Britt, M. A.,&Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
14. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Britt, M. A., Richter, T.,&Rouet, J. F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217
16. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F.,&Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman,&J. F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 160-179). New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Bromme, R.,&Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public's bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
18. Bromme, R., Thomm, E.,&Wolf, V. (2013). From understanding to deference: Laypersons' and medical students' views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, Communication and Public Engagement, 5, 68-91. http://10.1080/21548455.2013.849017
19. Cerdán, R., Marín, M. C.,&Candel, C. (2013). The role of perspective on students' use of multiple documents to solve an open-ended task. Psicología Educativa, 19, 89-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1135-755X(13)70015-0
20. Cerdán, R.,&Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209
21. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A.,&Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
22. Cirilo, R. K.,&Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning&Verbal Behavior, 19, 96-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90560-5
23. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Creswell, J. W.,&Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Creswell, J. W.,&Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
26. Ericsson, K. A.,&Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. 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, 220-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.005
28. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E.,&Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002
29. 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.
30. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C.,&Brodowinska, K. M. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356-381.
31. Greene, J. A., Yu, S.,&Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers&Education, 76, 55-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.008
32. Guthrie, J. T.,&Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson,&R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (3rd ed., pp. 403-422). New York, NY: Longman.
33. Hofer, B. K.,&Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham,&T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 227-256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13273-009
34. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. H.,&Riccomini, P. J. (2009). Should middle school students with learning problems copy and paste notes from the Internet? Mixed methods evidence of study barriers. Research on Middle Level Education Online, 33, 1-10.
35. Jetton, T. L.,&Alexander, P. A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.3.4
36. Kaakinen, J. K.,&Hyönä, J. (2011). Online processing of and memory for perspective relevant and irrelevant text information. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano,&G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 223-242). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
37. Kerlinger, F. N.,&Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
38. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. Lehman, S.,&Schraw, G. (2002). Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 738-750.
40. Linderholm, T., Kwon, H.,&Wang, X. (2011). The effects of reading purpose on advanced readers. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano,&G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 197-222). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
41. Linderholm, T.,&van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778-784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.778
42. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P.,&Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students' conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.239
43. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T.,&Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615
44. Mason, L., Ariasi, N.,&Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influences on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001
45. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016
46. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P.,&Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals, and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001
47. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P.,&Schraw, G. (2011). Relevance in text comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano,&G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 1-17). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
48. McCrudden, M. T.,&Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
49. Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P.,&Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.488
50. Nisbett, R. E.,&Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
51. Olejnik, S.,&Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1040
52. Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
53. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F.,&Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp&S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Pew Research Center. (2015, January 29). Public and scientists' views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
55. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
56. Ramsay, C. M.,&Sperling, R. A. (2011). The relevance of purpose: Why purpose situates relevance instructions. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano,&G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 243-265). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
57. Rapp, D. N.,&Mensink, M. C. (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). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
58. Roelle, J., Lehmkuhl, N., Beyer, M.-U.,&Berthold, K. (2014, October 20). The role of specificity, targeted learning activities, and prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000010
59. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. 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.
61. Rouet, J. F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, A.,&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, 205-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.007
62. Rudman, L. A., McLean, M. C.,&Bunzl, M. (2013). When truth is personally inconvenient, attitudes change: The impact of extreme weather on implicit support for green politicians and explicit climatechange beliefs. Psychological Science, 24, 2290-2296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613492775
63. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A.,&Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople's reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004
64. Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M.,&Bromme, R. (2014). You'd better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople's decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 465-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3018
65. Schraw, G.,&Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
66. Schraw, G., Wade, S. E.,&Kardash, C. A. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 652-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.652
67. Shanahan, T.,&Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
68. Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
69. Sparks, J. R.,&Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 230-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021331
70. Stadtler, M.,&Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computertool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023
71. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Rouet, J. F.,&Bromme, R. (2013, July). Source information can fuel validity judgments: Empirical investigation of a short training for vocational students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Valencia, Spain.
72. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I.,&Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513-527.
73. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A.,&Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
74. Tashakkori, A.,&Teddlie, C. (1998). Applied Social Research Methods Series: Vol. 46. Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75. Teddlie, C.,&Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T.,&Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory&Cognition, 29, 1081-1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206376
77. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A.,&Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817-826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020062
78. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183
79. Wineburg, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
80. Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3
81. Wopereis, I. G. J. H.,&van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). Evaluating text-based information on the World Wide Web. Learning and Instruction, 21, 232-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.003
82. 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, CA: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
83. Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of selfregulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman&D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Routledge.