How Reading Goals and Rhetorical Signals Influence Recipients’ Recognition of Intertextual Conflicts

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 1346-1351

  Stadtler, Marc ^a   Scharrer, Lisa ^a   Bromme, Rainer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

multiple document literacy; reading comprehension; reading online; signaling; task effects

Indexed keywords

CONDITION; INTEGRAL PART; LOW-COHERENCE; MULTIPLE DOCUMENT LITERACY; MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS; READING COMPREHENSION; READING ONLINE; SCIENTIFIC ISSUES; SIGNALING; TASK EFFECTS;

EID: 84986320696     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R.F. & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition: A scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147-154.
2. Cerdán, R. & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222.
3. 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.
4. 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. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
5. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R.F. J. & Kaakinen, J.K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44-55.
6. Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A. & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26, 335-362.
7. Lemarié, J., Lorch, R.F., Eyrolle, H. & Virbel, J. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43, 27 - 48.
8. McCrudden, M. & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139.
9. Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. León & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension. (pp. 281-307). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
10. Pasch, R. (2003). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren [Handbook of German connectors]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
11. Perfetti, C.A. (1997). Sentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23, 337-355.
12. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-Based Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of Information Search Tasks on the Comprehension of Instructional Text. Discourse Processes, 31, 163-185.
14. Stahl, E. & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785.
15. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Education Company.
16. Tapiero, I. (2007). Situation models and levels of coherence: Toward a definition of comprehension. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
17. Webster, D. & Kruglanski, A. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
18. Wiley, J. & Voss, J.F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1-11.
19. 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, 79.