Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models

Article

Abstract

Drawing on the theory of documents representation (Perfetti et al., Toward a theory of documents representation. In: H. v. Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999), we argue that successfully dealing with multiple documents on the World Wide Web requires readers to form documents models; that is, to form a representation of contents and sources. We present a study in which we tested the assumption that the use of metacognitive strategies is crucial to the formation of documents models. A total of 100 participants with little medical knowledge were asked to conduct an Internet research on a medical topic. Participants were randomly assigned to four experimental groups that received different types of metacognitive prompts: participants either received evaluation prompts, monitoring prompts, both types of prompts, or no prompts. A control group took paper-and-pencil notes. Results showed that laypersons receiving evaluation prompts outperformed controls in terms of knowledge about sources and produced more arguments relating to the source of information when justifying credibility judgments. However, laypersons receiving evaluation prompts were not better able to indicate the source of information after Internet research than controls. In addition, laypersons receiving monitoring prompts acquired significantly more knowledge about facts, and performed slightly better on a comprehension test. It is concluded that the results underline the importance of metacognition in dealing with multiple documents.

Keywords

Comprehension of multiple documents Metacognition Metacognitive tools Internet research Expert–layperson-communication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Bannert, M. (2003). Effekte metakognitiver Lernhilfen auf den Wissenserwerb in vernetzten Lernumgebungen [Effects of metacognitive learning aids in networked learning environments]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannert, M. (2004). Designing metacognitive support for hypermedia learning. In H. Niegemann, D. Leutner & R. Brünken (Eds.), Instructional Design for Multimedia-Learning. (pp. 19–30). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  4. Bhavnani, S. K., Jacob, R. T., Nardine, J., & Peck, F. A. (2003). Exploring the distribution of online healthcare information. Paper presented at the CHI, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA (April).Google Scholar
  5. Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben. [Need for cognition: A scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147–154.Google Scholar
  6. 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. v. d. Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving student’s ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bromme, R., Jucks, R., & Runde, A. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-layperson-communication. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers, biases and opportunities of communication and cooperation with computers—and how they may be overcome. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Chuan, F. K. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czienskowski, U. (1996). Wissenschaftliche Experimente: Planung, Auswertung, Interpretation. [Scientific experiments: planning, analysis and interpretation]. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  12. Dillon, A. (1991). Readers’ models of text structures: The case of academic articles. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 35, 913–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillon, A. (2002). Writing as design: Hypermedia and the shape of information space. In: R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  14. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative studies using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324, 573–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Eun-Ryoung, S. (2002). Emprical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web. A systematic review. JAMA, 287, 2691–2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. III (pp. 311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hays, W. L. (1988). Statistics, 4th edition. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. USA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Connor, A. M. (1995). Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Medical decision making, 15, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In: K. W. Schaie, R. T. Campbell, W. M. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging research (pp. 171–209). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stadtler, M. (2006). Auf der Suche nach medizinischen Fachinformationen. Metakognitionen bei der Internetrecherche von Laien [Searching for medical information. The role of metacognition in the Internet research of laypersons]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  32. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2004). Laypersons searching for medical information on the web: The role of metacognition. In: K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1638). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behaviour (in press).Google Scholar
  34. Veenmann, M. V., Elshout, J. J., & Busato, V. V. (1994). Metacognitive Mediation in learning with computerbased simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wittwer, J., Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2004). Kann man dem Internet trauen, wenn es um die Gesundheit geht? Die Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung medizinischer Fachinformationen im Internet durch laien. [Is the Internet a trustworthy source when it comes to health information? Laypersons’ trustworthiness ratings of medical information on the Internet] Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 2, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations