Desktop version

Home arrow Philosophy

  • Increase font
  • Decrease font


<<   CONTENTS   >>

Acknowledgments

I would like to sincerely thank Jonna Kulikowich for her invaluable feedback on the ideas in this chapter on drives from Pennsylvania to Maryland.

References

Afflerbach, P„ Hurt, M„ & Cho, B.-Y. (this volume). Reading comprehension strategy instruction. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, & M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of strategies and strategic processing: Conceptualization, measurement, and analysis. New York: Routledge.

Afflerbach, P. A., & Cho, B. Y. (2008). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 69-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 97-102.

Anmarkrud, 0., Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30,64-76.

Anmarkrud, 0., McCrudden, M. T., Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873-894.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.

Braasch, J. L., Rouet, J. F., Vibert, N.. & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450-465.

Brante, E. W., & Stromso, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 773-799.

Braten, I., Anmarkrud, 0., Brandmo, C., & Stromso, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30,9-24.

Braten, I., 8c Stromso, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1027-1042.

Braten, I., 8c Stromso, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130.

Braten, I., Stromso, H. I., 8c Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? I he role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 814-840.

Britt, M. A., 8c Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522.

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., 8c Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content Integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, 8c P. van Den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209-233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 313-339.

Brucker, B., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Learning with dynamic and static visualizations: Realistic details only benefit learners with high visuospatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 330-339.

Cairo, A. (2015). Graphics lies, misleading visuals. In Bihanic, D. (Eds.), New challenges for data design (pp. 103-116). London: Springer.

Callan, G. L„ & Cleary, T. J. (2018). Multidimensional assessment of self-regulated learning with middle school math students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 103-111.

Canham, M„ 8c Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155-166.

Cerdan, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209-222.

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.

Cho, B. Y, Afflerbach, P, 8c Han, H. (2018). Strategic processing in accessing. Comprehending, and using multiple sources online. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Braten, 8c M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 133-150). New York: Routledge.

Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., Schunk, D. H., Sc Greene, J. A. (2018). Assessing self-regulated learning using microanalytic methods. In D.H. Schunk Sc B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 338-351). New York: Routledge.

Cook, M„ Wiebe, E. N„ 8c Carter, G. (2008). Tie influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92(5), 848-867.

Cromley, J. G., Bergey, B. W, Fitzhugh, S., Newcombe, N.. Wills, T. W., Shipley, T. E, & Tanaka, J. C. (2013). Effects of three diagram instruction methods on transfer of diagram comprehension skills: Tie critical role of inference while learning. Learning and Instruction, 26,45-58.

Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., 8c Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59-74.

De La Paz, S„ Felton, M., Monte-Sano, C., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., Deogracias, J. S„ 8c Hoffman, В. P. (2014). Developing historical reading and writing with adolescent readers: Effects on student learning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42(2), 228-274.

De La Paz, S„ 8c Nokes, J. (this volume). Strategic processing in history and historical strategy instruction. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, 8c M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of strategies and strategic processing: Conceptualization, measurement, and analysis. New York: Routledge.

delMas, R., Garfield, J., 8c Ooms, A. (2005). Using assessment items to study students’ difficulty in reading and interpreting graphical representations of distributions. In K. Makar (Ed.), Reasoning about distribution: A collection of current research studies. Proceedings of the Fourth International Research Forum on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking and Literacy. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland.

Ferguson, L. E., 8c Braten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25,49-61.

Gerjets, P, Kammerer, Y, 8c 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.

Gil, L., Braten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E„ 8c Stromso, H. I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157-173.

Goldman, S. R„ Braasch, J. L, Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., 8c Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381.

Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., 8c Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, 8c J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 180-199). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor 8c Francis Group.

Goldman, S. R„ 8c Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255-269.

Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., 8c Dubois, V. (2008). Tie role of working memory components in multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(3), 353-374.

Hagen, A. M., Braasch, J. L., 8c Braten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 141-157.

Hegarty, M-, & Waller, D. A. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121-169). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hepfer, M-, List, A-, & Du, H. (2019). Developing a measure of conflict recognition, conflict-related reasoning, and resolution (C3R): Establishing the reliability and validity of the C3R. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 245-269.

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. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(1), 83-97.

Kammerer, Y, Kalbfell, E., 8c Gerjets, P. (2016). Is this information source commercially biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source information. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 430-456.

Kobayashi, K. (2009a). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311-324.

Kobayashi, K. (2009b). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 130-134.

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226.

Kühl, T, Scheiter, K., Gerjets, R, 8c Gemballa, S. (2011). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations?. Computers & Education, 56(1), 176-187.

Le Bigot, L., 8c 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(4), 445-470.

Lee, H. Y, 8c List, A. (2019). Processing of texts and videos: A strategy-focused analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 268-282.

List, A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2015). Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 407-436.

List, A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 182-199.

List, A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Text navigation in multiple source use. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 364-375.

List, A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2018a). Postscript: In pursuit of integration. Learning and instruction, 57, 82-85.

List, A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2018b). Cold and warm perspectives on the Cognitive Affective Engagement Model of Multiple Source Use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Braten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 46-66). New York: Routledge.

List, A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. In Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20-39.

List, A., Du, H., 8c Lee, H. Y. (2019). How do students integrate multiple texts?: An investigation of top-down processing. Manuscript submitted for publication.

List, A., Du, H„ Wang, Y, 8c Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58,228-242.

List, A., Stephens, L. A., 8c Alexander, P. A. (2019). Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307-333.

Llorens, A. C., Cerdän, R., 8c Vidal-Abarca, E. (2014). Adaptive formative feedback to improve strategic search decisions in task-oriented reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 233-251.

Lombardi, D., Seyranian, V, 8c Sinatra, G. M. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51(1-2), 75-92.

Maier, J., 8c Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 51-74.

Marton, E, 8c Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46( 1), 4-11.

Mason, L., Pluchino, P., 8c Tornatora, M. C. (2015). Eye-movement modeling of integrative reading of an illustrated text: Effects on processing and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41,172-187.

Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., 8c Ariasi, N. (2013). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356-384.

Mason, L, Scrimin, S.,Zaccoletti, S.,Tornatora, M. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Webpage reading: Psychophysiological correlates of emotional arousal and regulation predict multiple-text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 317-326.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McCrudden, M. T., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). Implementing integration in an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of belief bias about climate change with high school students. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 381-400.

McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology review, 19(2), 113-139.

McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1-30.

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51,297-384.

Moreno, R. (2002). Who learns best with multiple representations? Cognitive theory predictions on individual differences in multimedia learning. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1380-1385). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 99-113.

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492-505.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y, & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-E, & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86-112.

Renkl, A., 8t Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructional!}' support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599-621.

Richter, T, 8c Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148-166.

Rouet, J., 8c Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, 8c G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19-52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Rouet, J. F„ Britt, M. A., 8c Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200-215.

Rouet, J. F., Favart, M„ Britt, M. A., 8c Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and instruction, 15(1), 85-106.

Rouet, J. F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, M-, & Dinet, J. (2011). Tie 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.

Salmeron, L., Gil, L„ Braten, I., 8c Stromso, H. (2010). Comprehension effects of signaling relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 419-426.

Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., 8c van Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working memory in multimedia instruction: Is working memory working during learning from text and pictures?. Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 389-411.

Schwonke, R., Berthold, K„ 8c Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1227-1243.

Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227-237.

Schraw, G., 8c Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology review, 7(4), 351-371.

Spires, H. A., 8c Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249-260.

Stadtler, M„ 8c Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: Tie role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 191-210.

Stadtler, M., 8c 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.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). Hie content-source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379-402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R„ Britton, B. K„ McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history?. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430-456.

Stang Lund, E., Braten, I., Brante, E. W., & Stromso, H. I. (2017). Memory for textual conflicts predicts sourcing when adolescents read multiple expository texts. Reading Psychology, 38(4), 417-437.

Van Meter, P. N., & Cameron, C. (2018). Hie effects of presentation format on multiple document notetaking. Learning and instruction, 57,47-56.

Wang, Y, & List, A. (2019). Calibration in multiple text use. Metacognition and Learning, 1-36.

Wetzels, S. A., Kester, L., 8c Van Merrienboer, J. J. (2011). Adapting prior knowledge activation: Mobilisation, perspective taking, and learners’ prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 16-21.

Wiley, ]., 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.

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(2), 301-311.

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( 1), 73-87.

Winne, P. H., 8c Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D.L. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (Vol. 2, pp. 297-314). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502.

Wu, H. K., 8c Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492.

 
<<   CONTENTS   >>