References
- Andiliou, A., Ramsay, C. M., Murphy, P. K., & Fast, J. (2012). Weighing opposing positions: Examining the effects of intratextual persuasive messages on students’ knowledge and beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEDPSYCH.2011.10.001
- Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002
- Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43, 737–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4
- Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.006
- 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
- Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest: How they interact in learning from instructional texts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602060
- Braasch, J. L. G., 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(3), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003
- Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7
- 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(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
- 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. 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. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 58–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
- Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7
- Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1
- Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.002
- Brathwaite, N. H. (2019). I just couldn’t get into it: Promoting reflexive reading practices in the writing classroom using intertextuality. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 49(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2019.1599746
- 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
- Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press.
- Caverly, D. C., Payne, E. M., Castillo, A. M., Sarker, A., Threadgill, E., & West, D. (2019). Identifying digital literacies to build academic literacies. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 49(3), 170–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2019.1638218
- Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition ((1st ed.). Addison-Wesley.
- Howard, P. J., Gorzycki, M., Desa, G., & Allen, D. D. (2018). Academic reading: Comparing students’ and faculty perceptions of its value, practice, and pedagogy. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 48(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2018.1472942
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
- Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
- Linderholm, T., Kwon, H., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). Instructions that enhance multiple-text comprehension for college readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 45(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2014.906269
- Linderholm, T., Therriault, D. J., & Kwon, H. (2014). Multiple science text processing: building comprehension skills for college student readers. Reading Psychology, 35(4), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.726696
- List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309
- Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2006.08.004
- Lucisano, P., & Piemontese, M. E. (1988). GULPEASE: Una formula per la predizione della difficoltà dei testi in lingua italiana (en. tr. GULPEASE: A formula to predict the difficulty of texts in Italian). Scuola e Città, 3, 110–124.
- 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. 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. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9148-0
- Mokhtari, K., Delello, J., & Reichard, C. (2015). Connected yet distracted: Multitasking among college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 45(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2015.1021880
- Muthen, B., & Muthen, L. (2002). MPlus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. Muthen & Muthen.
- Polk, R. L. (2019). L’esprit critique in the era of fake news and alternative facts. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 49(3), 260–265. Taylor and Francis Inc. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2019.1597658
- 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 flexibility (pp. 125–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0_7
- Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52(5–6), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1025665
- Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
- Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9038-4
- 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). Information Age Publishing.
- 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
- Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 171–286). Cambridge University Press.
- Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (3rd ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall.
- Stahl, N. A., & Armstrong, S. L. (2018). Re-claiming, re-inventing, and re-reforming a field: The future of college reading. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 48(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2017.1362969
- Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. The MIT Press.
- 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
- Tarchi, C. (2019). Identifying fake news through trustworthiness judgements of documents / La identificación de noticias falsas mediante juicios de fiabilidad de los documentos. Cultura Y Educación, 31(2), 369–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2019.1597442
- Tarchi, C., & Mason, L. (2020). Effects of critical thinking on multiple-document comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(2), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00426-8
- Van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418
- Van Strien, J. L. H., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2016.02.057
- Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
- Wiley, J. (2005). A fair and balanced look at the news: What affects memory for controversial arguments? Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.001
- 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(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
- World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053