Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: a student–scientist comparison

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple text comprehension can greatly benefit from paying attention to sources and from using this information for evaluating text information. Previous research based on texts from the domain of history suggests that source-related strategies are acquired as part of the discipline expertise as opposed to the spontaneous use of these strategies by students just entering a field. In the present study, we compared the performance of students and scientists in the domain of psychology with regard to (a) their knowledge of publication types, (b) relevant source characteristics, (c) their use of sources for evaluating the credibility of multiple texts, and (d) their ability to judge the plausibility of argumentative statements in psychological texts. Participants worked on a battery of newly developed computerised tests with a think-aloud instruction to uncover strategies that scientists and students used when reading a text. Results showed that scientists scored higher in all of the assessed abilities and that these abilities were positively correlated with each other. Importantly, the superior performance of scientists in evaluating the credibility of multiple texts was mediated by their use of source information. Implications are discussed in terms of discipline expertise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2011). Adolescents as readers. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 157–176). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amstad, T. (1978). Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? [How understandable are our newspapers?]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Zürich, Switzerland.

  • Anderson, R. C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 67–82). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, J. S., & Samuels, S. J. (2015). Common core state standards and multiple-source reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 93–105). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving student’s ability to use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749–810.

    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: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, G. (2011). Adult literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 177–196). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social and cognitive psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, M., Oden, R. P., Joyner, B. L., Sims, A., & Moon, R. Y. (2012). Safe infant sleep recommendations on the Internet: Let’s google it. The Journal of Pediatrics, 161, 1080–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauer, F. W. (1989). Critical thinking: An introduction to reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 199–228). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233. doi:10.1037/h0057532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, R., & Schwarzer, R. (1997). Tabakkonsum: Erklärungsmodelle und Interventionsansätze [Tobacco consumption: Explanations and interventions]. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Gesundheitspsychologie: Ein Lehrbuch (pp. 209–244). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 417–436). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S., Braasch, J. L., 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S., & van Oostendorp, H. (1999). Conclusions, conundrums, and challenges for the future. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 323–330). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inquisit (Version 3.0.6.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://de.hyperionics.com/.

  • Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (2011). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515–532.

  • Luke, C., de Castell, S. C., & Luke, A. (1989). Beyond criticism: The authority of the school textbook. In S. C. de Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority, and criticism (pp. 245–260). Falmer: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundeberg, M. A. (1987). Metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension: Studying understanding in legal case analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 407–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37, 913–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, B. M., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., & Kim, H. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning. In M. L. Kamil, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 453–481). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492.

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013). PISA 2015 draft reading framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.html.

  • Paxton, R. J. (1997). “Someone with like a life wrote it”: The effects of a visible author on high school history students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T. (2003). Epistemologische Einschätzungen beim Textverstehen [Epistemic validation in text comprehension]. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558.

    Article  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 Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). Würzburger Lesestrategie-Wissenstest für die Klassen 7–12. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 237–255.

    Article  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, 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning & Instruction, 1, 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Stein, S., Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when scientists read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 920–933.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grants 01PK11017B and 01PK11017A).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Holländische Str. 36-38, 34127, Kassel, Germany

    Sarah von der Mühlen & Tobias Richter

  2. Department of Educational Science, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    Sebastian Schmid

  3. Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Postfach 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Elisabeth Marie Schmidt & Kirsten Berthold

Authors
  1. Sarah von der Mühlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elisabeth Marie Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kirsten Berthold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Richter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

von der Mühlen, S., Richter, T., Schmid, S. et al. The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: a student–scientist comparison. Read Writ 29, 1677–1698 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation