Learning from multiple sources in a digital society

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 86-95

  Goldman, Susan R ^a   Brand Gruwel, Saskia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049292602     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (53)

1. American College Testing (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA; Author.
2. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries (OECD Education Working Papers No. 41). Paris: OECD Publishing.
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.
4. Barab, S. A., & Roth, W. M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13.
5. Barsky, E., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). The impact of task phrasing on the choice of search keywords and on the search process and success. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(10), 1987-2005.
6. Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36(0), 86-103.
7. Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In C. Bazerman & P. A. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309-339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in com-prehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450-465.
9. Brand-Gruwel, S., Kammerer, Y., van Meeuwen, L., & van Gog, T. (2017). Source evaluation of domain experts and novices during Web search. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.111/jcal.12162.
10. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 487-508.
11. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of Information Problem Solving while using Internet. Computers & Education, 53, 1207-1217.
12. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Student working with multiple conflict-ing documents on a science issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 58-85.
13. Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (in press). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M.F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
14. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents experienced as entities: Extending the situ-ation 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: Routledge.
15. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59-69.
16. Cobb, P., Confrey, J. diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
17. 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.
18. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30-68.
19. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356-381.
20. Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., et al. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework of core processes and constructs. Educational Psychologist, 51, 219-246.
21. Guan, Z., & Cutrell, E. (2007). An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on Web search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 417-420). New York: ACM Press.
22. Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2 (2-3), 89-105.
23. Höchstötter, N., & Lewandowski, D. (2009). What users see-Structures in search engine results pages. Information Sciences, 179(12), 1796-1812.
24. Kammerer, Y., Amann, D., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the internet for health information: The roles of internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297-309.
25. Kim, J., Kazai, G., & Zitouni, I. (2013). Relevance dimensions in preference-based evaluation. In Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 913-916). New York: ACM Press.
26. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38(6), 607-633.
29. McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of author expertise and content relevance on document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 147-162.
30. National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences.
31. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century (J. W. Pellegrino and M. L. Hilton, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
32. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
33. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (2013). PISA 2012: Results in focus. Paris: OECD.
34. Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3(4), 229-235.
35. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. New York: Psychology Press. (Reissued by Routledge, 2012.)
36. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. Van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representation during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 19-52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
38. Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in his-tory: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.
39. Salmerón, L., Kammerer, Y., & García-Carrión, P. (2013). Searching the Web for conflicting topics: page and user factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2161-2171.
40. Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge: Origins, issues, and future directions of research on epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education, 40, 457-496.
41. Singer, G., Norbisrath, U., & Lewandowski, D., (2012). Impact of gender and age on performing search tasks online. In H. Reiterer & O. Deussen (Eds.), Mensch & Computer 2012: interaktiv informiert-allgegenwärtig und allumfassend!? (pp. 23-32). Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag.
42. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational stu-dents’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29(4), 705-729.
43. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scien-tific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51(1-2), 93-116.
44. Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Coordinating multiple representations in scientific problem solving: Evidence from concurrent verbal and eye-tracking protocols. Cognition & Instruction, 29, 123-145.
45. 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, 20, 192-204.
46. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
47. Van Strien, J., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2014). Dealing with conflicting information from multiple nonlinear texts: Effects of prior attitudes. Computer in Human Behavior, 32, 101-111.
48. 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 and Education, 52(1), 234-246.
49. Ward, P. R., Henderson, J., Coveney, J., & Meyer, S. (2012). How do south Australian consumers negotiate and respond to information in the media about food and nutrition? The importance of risk, trust and uncer-tainty. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 23-41.
50. White, R. W. (2014). Belief dynamics in web search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 2165-2178.
51. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source eval-uation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106.
52. 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, 73-87.
53. Wolfe, M. B. & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relationships between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 467-502.