Scientific Literacy: The Role of Goal-Directed Reading and Evaluation in Understanding Scientific Information

REFERENCES

• Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, E. S., Burke, J. M., Welch, M. E., & Rieseberg, L. H. (1999). Reliability of science on the web. Nature, 402, 722. doi:10.1038/45370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy of learning for teaching: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 11, 363–374. doi:10.1080/10862967909547342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56. doi:10.1007/BF00127118
   Google Scholar
• Blankenship, K.L., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloebaum, B., & Noelleke, D. (2011, February). Journalism and scientific evidence. Paper presented at the Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science Conference, New York City, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L., 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. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. M. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students’ use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41, 63–82. doi:10.2190/EC.41.1.c
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1–31. doi:10.1080/01638530902959646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluation of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving student's ability to use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. (2002). Implications of document-level literacy skills for web-site design. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 170–176. doi:10.3758/BF03195439
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1080/01638530701739207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749–810. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and mental structures (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2012). 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.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Perfetti, C. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1994). Learning from history texts: from causal analysis to argument models. In G. Leinhardt, I. Beck, & K. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 47–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28, 47–63. doi:10.1177/1075547006291345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778–807. doi:10.2307/748198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49. doi:10.3102/00346543063001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, M., Oden, R.P., Joyner, B.L., Sims, A., & Moon, R.Y. (2012). Safe infant sleep recommendations on the Internet: Let's Google it. The Journal of Pediatrics, 161, 1080–1084. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). The common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies and science and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
   Google Scholar
• Durik, A. M., Britt, M. A., Reynolds, R., & Storey, J. K. (2008). The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 217–234. doi:10.1177/0261927X08317947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the fab five: Helping students cope with the unique linguistic challenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 476–487. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.6.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.11.1-4.702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S., Braasch, J. L., 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. doi:10.1002/RRQ.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., Gomez, K. W., Braasch, J. L., Macleod, S., & Manning, F. (2011). Literacy in the digital world: Comprehending and learning from multiple sources. In M. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 257–284). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2012). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 180–199). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., & Franklin, S. P. (1990). QUEST: A cognitive model of question answering. Discourse Processes, 13, 279–303. doi:10.1080/01638539009544760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.101.3.371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L. A., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441. doi:10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Eds.), Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 331–496). New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175. doi:10.1086/286983
   Google Scholar
• Horn, K. (2001). The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles. BioScience, 51, 1086–1093. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[1086:TCOCHS]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
   Google Scholar
• Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2014). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15–22. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isberner, M-B., & Richter, T. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes, 51, 7–25. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420–1436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.85.5.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Discourse Processes, 18, 211–230. doi:10.1080/01638539409544892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopp, K. (2013). Selecting and using information from multiple documents for argumentation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
   Google Scholar
• Kopp, K., Britt, M. A., Millis, K., & Graesser, A. (2012). Improving the efficiency of dialogue in tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 22, 320–330. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339–365. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205–224. doi:10.1080/02702710490489908
   Google Scholar
• Lea, R. B., Mulligan, E. J., & Walton, J. (2005). Accessing distant premise information: How memory feeds reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 28, 303–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 301–311.
   Google Scholar
• Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. L., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 204–226. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013a). How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues: The role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14–26. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013b). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151–175. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Training multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 54–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. (this issue). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Dyck, J. L., & Cook, L. K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build mental models from scientific text: Definitions pretraining and signalling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1089–1105. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.76.6.1089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 367–388. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317–339. doi:10.1002/acp.2350070406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., Morgan, D., & Graesser, A. C. (1990). The influence of knowledge-based inferences on the reading time of expository text. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 25, 197–212. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60256-X
   Google Scholar
• Noordman, L. G. M., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 13, 573–590. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90029-W
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240. doi:10.1002/sce.10066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84–106. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance (Vol. VI). Paris, France: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264112995-en
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638. doi:10.1002/sce.20438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229–235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00034.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562–571. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.77.5.562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platt, J. R. (1964). Science, strong inference—Proper scientific method. Science Magazine, 146, 347–353. doi:10.1126/science.146.3642.347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, T. (2011). Cognitive flexibility and epistemic validation in learning from multiple texts. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexiblity (pp. 125–140). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don't have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558. doi:10.1037/a0014038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rottenberg, A. (1988). Elements of argument: A text and reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin's.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Caroux, L., Nivet, C., & Le Bigot, L. (2009, August). When do readers construct document models? The role of source information and story consistency. Paper presented at the biennial meeting for the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F., & Coutelet, B. (2008). The acquisition of document search strategies in grade school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389–406. doi:10.1002/acp.1415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (this issue). Developing children's early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, S., Richter, T., & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18. doi:10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, F. W. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51–80. doi:10.1080/135467896394564
   Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (this issue). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361–366. doi:10.1177/0963721413495236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M., & Gagnon, N. (1999). Detecting causal inconsistencies in scientific text. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 179–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 507–524. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90026-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199–228. doi:10.1080/01638539709545013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C., & the RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Toward a R&D program for reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (in press). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.2.342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851–860. doi:10.1002/acp.915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Silfes, L. N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7, 165–181. doi:10.1007/BF00710663
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3602_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1–27. doi:10.1080/13546780701527674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the Myside Bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183–209. doi:10.1177/0741088309333019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar