References
- Anmarkrud, O., 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
- Baker, A. R., & Anderman, L. H. (2020). Are epistemic beliefs and motivation associated with belief revision among postsecondary service-learning participants? Learning and Individual Differences, 78, 101843. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101843
- Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Huettel, L. G., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2016). Developmental changes in college engineering students’ personal epistemology profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.04.002
- Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t32392-000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003
- Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.636495
- Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & McCrudden, M. T. (2018). Effects of task relevance instructions and topic beliefs on reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 55(4), 410–431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1292824
- Brandmo, C., & Bråten, I. (2018). Investigating relations between beliefs about justification for knowing, interest, and knowledge across two socio-scientific topics. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 89–97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.010
- Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic–specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38(6), 635–657. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9091-4
- 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002
- Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word–level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26(3), 321–348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x
- Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(Pt 1), 58–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
- Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 879–902. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2
- Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
- Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042761
- Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015). Arguing to agree: Mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317–331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315590788
- Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49–61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003
- Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 100–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001
- Ferreti, R. P., & Lewis, W. E. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C. A., MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 113–140). New York, NY: Guilford. doi:https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-2158
- Flesch, R. (1951). How to test readability. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
- 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
- Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142–160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178458
- Harris, J. (2017). Rewriting: How to do things with texts. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1vbd212
- Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
- Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
- Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Stromso, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet–specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1193–1203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.012
- Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisiting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260–271. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.260
- Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163
- Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(1), 1–24. − doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.05.001
- Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- 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(11), 2098–2109. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
- Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003
- Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). Text Belief Consistency Effects in the Comprehension of Multiple Texts with Conflicting Information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151–175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
- Maier, J., & 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x
- Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2016). Effects of text-belief consistency and reading task on the strategic validation of multiple texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(4), 479–497. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0270-9
- Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137–151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001
- Mateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 119–138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300
- McCrudden, M. T., & Barnes, A. (2016). Differences in student reasoning about belief-relevant arguments: A mixed methods study. Metacognition and Learning, 11(3), 275–303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9148-0
- McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
- McCrudden, M. T., & Sparks, P. C. (2014). Exploring the effect of task instructions on topic beliefs and topic belief justifications: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(1), 1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.10.001
- McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). The effect of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48(2), 69–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01638531003694561
- Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
- Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416306
- Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. C. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students’ beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213–225. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029690
- Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
- Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
- Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
- Nussbaum, E.M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument–counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
- 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-Step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148–166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
- Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple documents comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
- Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-066
- Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1999). How implicit models of reading affect motivation to read and reading engagement. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 281–302. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_5
- 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(3), 237–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.05.001
- Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
- Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Song, Y., & Ferretti, R. P. (2013). Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revision process: Effects of strategy instruction on college students’ argumentative essays. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 67–90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9381-8
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–357. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 161–188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161
- Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple‐text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 425–445. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864
- Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
- Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Muijselaar, M. M. L. (2017). Exploring the relations between epistemic beliefs, emotions, and learning from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 116–132. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.001
- van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., 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. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–140). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
- van Strien, J. L., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.057
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans. & Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for persuasive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/978020381
- Walton, D. N. (2007). Media argumentation: Dialectic, persuasion, and rhetoric. Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311
- Wegener, D. T., Clark, J. K., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Not all stereotyping is created equal: Differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 42–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.42
- Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1), 77–94. − doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(03)00024-9
- Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
- 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
- Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060–1160. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183
- Wiley, J., Steffens, B., Britt, M. A., & Griffin, T. D. (2014). Writing to learn from multiple-source inquiry activities in history. In G. Rijlaarsdam, & P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. C. Kirpatrick, & C. Gelati (Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 28, Writing as a learning activity (pp. 120–148). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
- Wolfe, C. R. (2012). Individual Differences in the “Myside Bias” in Reasoning and Written Argumentation. Written Communication, 29(4), 477–501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312457909
- Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). Locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780701527674
- Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183–209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019