Investigating the Roles of Document Presentation and Reading Interactions on Different Aspects of Multiple Document Comprehension

References

• Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp.69–90). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, C., Endert, A., & North, C. (2010). Space to think: Large, high-resolution displays for sensemaking [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference, on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’10, April 10–15 (pp. 55–64). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753336
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, R., & North, C. (2005). Analysis of user behavior on high-resolution tiled displays. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 3585, 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/11555261_30
   Google Scholar
• Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benshoof, L. A., Graves, M., & Hooper, S. (1995). The effects of single and multiple window presentations on achievement, instructional time, window use, and attitudes during computer-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(2), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(94)00035-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bi, X., & Balakrishnan, R. (2009). Comparing usage of a large high-resolution display to single or dual desktop displays for daily work [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1005–1014).
   Google Scholar
• Björnsson, C. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braasch, J. L. G., Killion, S. C., & Bråten, I. (2021). Contextual factors that affect adolescents’ detection of and memory for conflicts across multiple texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12348
   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(3), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6
   PubMed 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., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., Strømsø, H. I., Br, I., 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
   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. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instructions, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139048224.017
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, Aaron, A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students’ essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3), 359–374.
   Google Scholar
• Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Czerwinski, M., Smith, G., Regan, T., Meyers, B., Starkweather, G., & Way, O. M. (2003). Toward characterizing the productivity benefits of very large displays [Paper presentation]. In M. Rauterberg, M. Menozzi, & J. Wesson (Eds.), International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT. IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delgado, P., Stang Lund, E., Salmerón, L., & Bråten, I. (2020). To click or not to click: Investigating conflict detection and sourcing in a multiple document hypertext environment. Reading and Writing, 33(8), 2049–2072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10030-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haber, J., Nacenta, M. A., & Carpendale, S. (2014). Paper vs. tablets: The effect of document media in co-located collaborative work [Paper presentation]. In F. Garzotto, A. de A. Paolini, G. Jacucci, A. Malizia, M. Matera, & R. Lanzilotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 89–96). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598153.2598170]
   Google Scholar
• Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchings, D. R., Smith, G., Meyers, B., Czerwinski, M., Robertson, G. (2004). Display space usage and window management operation comparisons between single monitor and multiple monitor users. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces – AVI ’04 (pp. 32–39).
   Google Scholar
• Hutchings, D. R., Stasko, J. (2004). Revisiting display space management: Understanding current practice to inform next-generation design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Graphics, Visualization & HCI (GI’04) (Vol. 62, pp. 127–134). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1006074
   Google Scholar
• Jang, J., Bell Trickett, S., Schunn, C. D., & Gregory Trafton, J. (2012). Unpacking the temporal advantage of distributing complex visual displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(11), 812–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Performance benefits of spatially distributed versus stacked information on integration tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2014). A framework for unpacking cognitive benefits of distributed complex visual displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 20(3), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, J., Schunn, C. D., & Nokes, T. J. (2011). Spatially distributed instructions improve learning outcomes and efficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kammerer, Y., Meier, N., & Stahl, E. (2016). Fostering secondary-school students’ intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts. Computers & Education, 102, 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiili, C., & Leu, D. J. (2019). Exploring the collaborative synthesis of information during online reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction–integration model of text comprehension and its implications comprehension. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1328). International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, K. (2009). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9041-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Bigot, L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701675317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leroy, C., Gerjets, P., Oestermeier, U., & Kammerer, Y. (2021). Simultaneous presentation of multiple documents and text-highlighting: Online integrative processes and offline integrated understanding. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1784903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leroy, C., & Kammerer, Y. (2022). Reading multiple documents on a health-related issue: The roles of a text-highlighting tool and re-reading behavior on integrated understanding. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   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(4), 778–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A. (2019). Drawing is integrating: An examination of students’ graphic representations of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 40(6), 491–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2019.1629517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2018). Corroborating students’ self-reports of source evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(3), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1430849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., Du, H., & Lee, H. Y. (2021). Examining relation formation across consistent and conflicting texts. Discourse Processes, 58(2), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1834328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, A., Stephens, L. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9863-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard, J., Bråten, I., van de Leemput, C., & Amadieu, F. (2021). Performance and acceptance when using tablets as a multiple document learning tool: Do application and guidance matter? Instructional Science, 49(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09537-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K., Diekema, A. R., Leary, H., Haderlie, S., & Holliday, W. (2015). Teaching and learning information synthesis: An intervention and rubric based assessment. Comminfolit, 9(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.1.176
   Google Scholar
• Lyu, X., & Li, Z. (2020). Correlations between human performance in information seeking, information integration, and overall process in diagnostic tasks. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(3), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1631545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahlow, N., Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U., Artelt, C., Goldhammer, F., & Schoor, C. (2020). More than (single) text comprehension? – On university students' understanding of multiple documents. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muntinga, T., & Taylor, G. (2018). Information-seeking strategies in medicine queries: A clinical eye-tracking study with gaze-cued retrospective think-aloud protocol. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(6), 506–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1368949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K. P., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 335–342). https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258787
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K. P., Taylor, A. L. E. X., Newman, W., & Sellen, A. J. (2002). Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(3), 269–305. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olive, T., Rouet, J. F., François, E., & Zampa, V. (2008). Summarizing digital documents: Effects of alternate or simultaneous window display. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. Von Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 88–108). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2294–2216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Maglilano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F., Mason, R. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Britt, M. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018a). Effects of reading real versus print-out versions of multiple documents on students’ sourcing and integrated understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018b). Using eye-tracking to assess sourcing during multiple document reading: A critical analysis. Frontline Learning Research, 6(3), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.368
   Google Scholar
• Skuballa, I. T., Dammert, A., & Renkl, A. (2018). Two kinds of meaningful multimedia learning: Is cognitive activity alone as good as combined behavioral and cognitive activity? Learning and Instruction, 54, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The 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). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). Beliefs about justification for knowing when ethnic majority and ethnic minority students read multiple conflicting documents. Educational Psychology, 36(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takano, K., Shibata, H., & Omura, K. (2015). Effects of paper on cross-reference reading for multiple documents: Comparison of reading performances and processes between paper and computer displays [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (OzCHI’15) (pp. 497–505). https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838745
   Google Scholar
• Wiley, J. (2001). Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 23(23), 375–389.
   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(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar