Multiple Models of Multiple-Text Comprehension: A Commentary

REFERENCES

• Baker, L., & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373–388). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, E. L., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). Effects of perspective and belief on analytic reasoning in a scientific reasoning task. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.687892
   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 (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.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017/this issue). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L. G., McCabe, R. M., & Daniel, F. (2016). Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Reading and Writing, 29, 1571–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9609-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002
   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: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, B-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 252–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.918133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2012). Cognitive consistency as a basic principle of social information processing. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Gottlieb, E., & Wineburg, S. (2012). Between veritas and communitas: Epistemic switching in the reading of academic and sacred history. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 84–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.582376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossnickle, E. M. (2014). The expression and enactment of interest and curiosity in a multiple source use task (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Mental models and consistency. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 225–244). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & O'Brien, E. J. (2016). Prior knowledge: Acquisition and revision. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 151–163). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017/this issue). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., & Taylor, C. A. (2009). Biased assimilation: Effects of assumptions and expectations on the interpretation of new evidence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 827–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00203.x
   Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (Eds.). (2011). Text relevance and learning from text. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., & Sparks, P. C. (2014). Exploring the effect of task instruction on topic beliefs and topic belief justification: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–284). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning. Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• 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 representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, D. N. (2016). The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Psychological Science, 25, 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416649347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017/this issue). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
   Web of Science ®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.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017/this issue). RESOLV: Readers’ representations of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). Investigating interest and knowledge as predictors of students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. J. (2011). When a reader meets a text. The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–139). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• van Oostendorp, H. (2002). Updating mental representations during reading scientific text. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 309–329). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlowsky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2009). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlowsky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 259–277). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar