Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test a hypothesized model that specified direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on readers’ ability to integrate information about sources and content when reading multiple conflicting texts on a controversial socio-scientific issue. Using a path analytic approach with a sample of 140 Norwegian upper secondary school students, it was found that the textual factor of presentation format, specifically whether they read about the conflicting issue in multiple texts or in a single text, affected source-content integration directly as well as indirectly through memory for textual conflicts. Thus, compared to interacting with a single text, interacting with multiple texts improved students’ sourcing performance directly as well as indirectly. Further, the individual factors of prior knowledge and gender affected source-content integration directly, with prior knowledge also having an indirect effect that was mediated by memory for textual conflicts. Specifically, students with higher prior knowledge and girls were likely to display better sourcing performance than were students with lower prior knowledge and boys, and prior knowledge also had an indirect positive effect on sourcing via memory for textual conflicts. Theoretical as well as educational implications of the findings are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On the conflict detection task, participants who got the version with cross-references scored 0.38 and those who got the version without cross-references scored 0.36, with t(83) = .18, p = .86. On the source-content integration task, participants who got the version with cross-references scored 4.93 and those who got the version without cross-references scored 5.49, with t(81) = − 1.37, p = .18. There were also no differences between the two versions of the multiple text format with respect to prior knowledge or interest, ts < 1.
On average, the participants in the multiple-text condition correctly identified 3.95 of the attractor items as conflicting claims, yielding a proportion score of 0.49 (i.e., 3.95/8) for these items. On average, they misidentified 1.00 of the uncritical items as conflicting claims, yielding a proportion score of 0.12 (i.e., 1.00/8) for the uncritical items. Their score on the conflict verification task was computed by subtracting the proportion score for the misidentified conflicts (0.12) from the proportion score for the correctly identified conflicts (0.49), yielding a final score of 0.37. On average, the participants in the single-text condition correctly identified 2.85 of the attractor items as conflicting claims, yielding a proportion score of 0.36 (i.e., 2.85/8) for these items. On average, they misidentified 0.86 of the uncritical items as conflicting claims, yielding a proportion score of 0.11 (i.e., 0.86/8) for these items. Their final score was the proportion of misidentified conflicts (0.11) subtracted from the proportion of correctly identified conflicts (0.36), equaling 0.25. Of the 140 participants, 14 had negative scores on the conflict verification task. This might indicate that some participants had misunderstood or not read the task instruction, statements, or questions carefully, or that they simply had not put time or effort into responding to this task.
References
Afflerbach, P. (2002). Teaching reading self-assessment strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 96–111). New York: Routledge.
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: Routledge.
Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52, 167–181.
Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Incremental theories of intelligence predict multiple document comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 11–20.
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.
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.
Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2017). Key issues in research on students’ critical reading and learning in the 21st century information society. In C. Ng & B. Bartlett (Eds.), Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century: International research and innovations (pp. 77–98). Singapore: Springer.
Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2018). The role of conflict in multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 184–201). New York: Routledge.
Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (in press). What really matters: The role of behavioral engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading.
Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. F. Schober, M. A. Britt, & D. N. Rapp (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 141–166). New York: Routledge.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Andreassen, R. (2016). Sourcing in professional education: Do text factors make any difference? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1599–1628.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.
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.
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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). 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: Routledge.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ek, S. (2015). Gender differences in health information behaviour: A Finnish population-based study. Health Promotion International, 30, 736–745.
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
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.
French, D. P., & Sutton, S. (2010). Reactivity of measurement in health psychology: How much of a problem is it? British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 453–468.
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.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Hu, L. T., & 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, 1–55.
Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & Gerjets, P. (2016a). Is this information source commercially biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source information. Discourse Processes, 53, 430–456.
Kammerer, Y., Meier, N., & Stahl, E. (2016b). Fostering secondary-school students’ intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts. Computers & Education, 102, 52–64.
Keck, D., Kammerer, Y., & Starauschek, E. (2015). Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts? Computers & Education, 82, 442–449.
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39, 75–95.
Kjaernslie, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V., & Turmo, A. (2004). Rett spor eller ville veier [Right track or off road]?. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation, and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 23–40.
Lawless, K. A., & Schrader, P. G. (2008). Where do we go now? Understanding research on navigation in complex digital environments. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of new literacies (pp. 267–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52, 143–147.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52, 182–199.
List, A., & Alexander, P. K. (2018). Cold and warm perspectives on the Cognitive Affective Engagement Model of multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 34–54). New York: Routledge.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 320–341.
Mason, L., Boscolo, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ronconi, L. (2013). Besides knowledge: A cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instructional Science, 41, 49–79.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384.
Moan, J., Baturaite, Z., Juzeniene, A., & Porojnicu, A. C. (2012). Vitamin D, sun, sunbeds and health. Public Health Nutrition, 15, 711–715.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus user’s guide: Version 7. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nokes, J., Dole, J., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to be critical and strategic readers of historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492–504.
Norwegian Cancer Association. (2009). The adolescent study: Sunbed. Oslo: Norwegian Cancer Association.
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.
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52, 200–215.
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.
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.
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018). Effects of reading real versus print-out versions of multiple documents on students’ sourcing and integrated understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 25–35.
Scharrer, L., & Salmerón, L. (2016). Sourcing in the reading process: Introduction to the special issue. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1539–1548.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279.
Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123–138.
Stadtler, M. (2017). The art of reading in a knowledge society: Commentary on the special issue on models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52, 225–231.
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). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as a function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130–150.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51, 93–116.
Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Memory for textual conflicts predicts sourcing when adolescents read multiple expository texts. Reading Psychology, 38, 417–437.
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.
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, 18, 513–527.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 85–106.
Trevors, G., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning processes vary as a function of epistemic beliefs and contexts: Mixed method evidence from eye tracking and concurrent and retrospective reports. Learning and Instruction, 42, 31–46.
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2015). Building coherence in web-based and other non-traditional reading environments: Cognitive opportunities and challenges. In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, M. S. Hagerman, P. M. Morsink, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices (pp. 104–114). New York: Routledge.
von der Mühlen, S., Richter, T., Schmid, S., Schmidt, E. M., & Berthold, K. (2016). The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: A student-scientist comparison. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1677–1698.
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.
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.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was funded by Grant 237981/H20 from the Research Council of Norway to Ivar Bråten and Helge I. Strømsø.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Title and source information for each of the four texts
Lack of light causes depression |
Psychologist Anita Lund |
Association for Mental Health |
helsenorge.noa |
2016 |
Too little daylight leads to sleeplessness |
Lecturer Kristin Iversen |
Norwegian School of Sports Sciences |
Olympiatoppen.nob |
2013 |
Sunbathing causes cancer |
Chief physician Hilde Dahl |
The Norwegian Cancer Association |
Journal of Medicine |
2014 |
Vitamin D is important for the body |
Nutritionist Nina Sørensen |
Norwegian Food Safety Authority |
Journal of Food and Health |
2015 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C. et al. Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Read Writ 32, 335–356 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z