Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia

Abstract

Learning from different representations, such as text and pictures, is supposed to be more effective than learning from text alone. However, there is very limited research on potential differences between students with and without dyslexia with respect to learning from different representations. This study compared students with and without dyslexia working with multiple information sources on a socio-scientific issue in a digital environment. Participants were 44 Norwegian tenth-graders, of whom 22 were diagnosed with dyslexia. All participants were presented with a researcher generated Internet site containing three different web pages, each including a video, a text, and a picture, on which conflicting perspectives on the controversial issue of sun exposure and health were discussed. In a first session, participants’ topic knowledge, word recognition, and working memory were measured. In a second session, participants studied the three web pages to prepare an oral presentation on the issue, before they again completed the topic knowledge measure and responded to two integrative questions that assessed their integration of information across web pages and representations. No reliable differences were found between the two groups with regard to pre-reading topic knowledge, post-reading topic knowledge, or knowledge gain. However, participants without dyslexia clearly outperformed participants with dyslexia on multiple source integration and were much more likely to draw on textual sources when trying to integrate information across different web pages and representations. Results also suggested that observed differences with respect to multiple source integration were largely due to working memory differences between the two groups of students.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Baddeley’s (2000) model of working memory, working memory consists of four components: the central executive, the phonological loop, the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer. The central executive functions as an attentional control system regulating the three other components. The phonological loop is the component processing auditory information, while the visuo-spatial sketchpad contains two subcomponents: one addressing the characteristics of objects such as size, color, and shape, and another handling relational or spatial information and the control of movements. Finally, the episodic buffer is considered a limited-capacity storage system that temporarily stores and integrates information from the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad with each other and with prior knowledge.

  2. 2.

    Although the purpose of this study was to assess integration across web pages and representations rather than within single web pages, with this purpose also reflected in how the task instruction as well as the questions used to probe multiple source integration were formulated (e.g., Could more than one view on the relationship between sun exposure, health, and illness be correct?), we also explored the extent to which students in the two groups used representations presented on each web page in their oral responses. Thus, from the first web page students without dyslexia used .25 (SD = .55) and students with dyslexia used .23 (SD = .43) representations on average, from the second web page students without dyslexia used 1.55 (SD = .60) and students with dyslexia used 1.23 (SD = .53) representations on average, and from the third web page students without dyslexia used 1.25 (SD = .64) and students with dyslexia used .95 (SD = .65) representations on average. None of these within page differences between the groups were statistically significant, with ts < 1.85, ps > .07.

References

  1. Abtahi, M. S. (2012). Interactive multimedia learning object (IMLO) for dyslexic children. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1206–1210.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Wabil, A., Zaphiris, P., & Wilson, S. (2007). Web navigation for individuals with dyslexia: An explanatory study. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Proceedings from the 4th international conference on universal access in human-computer interaction: Coping with diversity (pp. 593–602). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andreassen, R., Jensen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2017). Investigating self-regulated study strategies among postsecondary dyslexic students: A diary method study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30, 1891–1910.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anmarkrud, Ø., Brante, E. W., & Andresen, A. (2018). Potential processing challenges of Internet use among readers with dyslexia. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education, 53, 1339–1354.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417–423.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 193–232.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beacham, N. A., & Alty, J. L. (2006). An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Computers & Education, 47, 74–93.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berget, G., & Sandnes, F. E. (2015). Searching databases without query-building aids: Implications for dyslexic users. Information Research, 20, 689.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berninger, V. W., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., & Stock, P. (2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 707–744.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858–886.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Björnsson, C. H. (1968). Läsbarhet [Readability]. Stockholm: Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Björnsson, C. H. (1983). Readability of newspapers in 11 languages. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 480–497.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2010). The specific role of inhibition in reading comprehension in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 541–552.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Borg, J. N., Lantz, A., & Gulliksen, J. (2015). Accessibility to electronic communication for people with cognitive disabilities: A systematic search and review of empirical evidence. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 547–562.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of multiple source use. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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, 180–195.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bråten, I., Lie, A., Andreassen, R., & Olaussen, B. S. (1999). Leisure time reading and orthographic processes in word recognition among Norwegian third- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bruck, M. (1990). Word recognition skills of adults with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 26, 439–454.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brunyé, T. T., Taylor, H. A., Rapp, D. N., & Spiro, A. B. (2006). Learning procedures: The role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 917–940.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 174–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cain, K. E., Bryant, P. E., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91–110). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chen, C. J., & Keong, M. W. Y. (2017). Affording inclusive dyslexia-friendly online text reading. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16, 951–965.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cho, B.-Y., Woodward, L., & Li, D. (2017). Examining adolescents’ strategic processing during online reading with a question generating task. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 691–724.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cicchini, G. M., Marino, C., Mascheretti, S., Perani, D., & Morrone, M. C. (2015). Strong motion deficits in dyslexia associated with DCDC2 gene alteration. Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 8059–8064.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Conners, F. A., & Olson, R. K. (1990). Reading comprehension in normal and dyslexic readers: A component-skills analysis. In D. Balota, G. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 557–579). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cornelissen, P., Richardson, A., Mason, A., Fowler, S., & Stein, J. (1995). Contrast sensitivity and coherent motion detection measured at photopic luminance levels in dyslexia and controls. Vision Research, 35, 1483–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Corriveau, K. H., Einav, S., Robinson, E. J., & Harris, P. L. (2014). To the letter: Early readers trust print-based over oral instructions to guide their actions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32, 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

    Google Scholar 

  36. de Olivera, D. G., da Silva, P. B., Dias, N. M., Sebra, A. G., & Macedo, E. C. (2014). Reading component skills in dyslexia: Word recognition, comprehension, and processing speed. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1339.

    Google Scholar 

  37. DeSchryver, M. (2015). Higher order thinking in an online world: Toward a theory of web-mediated knowledge synthesis. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dutke, S., & Rinck, M. (2006). Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 16, 526–537.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Einav, S., Robinson, E. J., & Fox, A. (2012). Take it as read: Origins of trust in knowledge gained from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114, 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Eyden, J., Robinson, E. J., Einav, S., & Jaswal, V. K. (2013). The power of print: Children’s trust in unexpected printed suggestions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 593–608.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53, 42–60.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A.-M. (2006). Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: Lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Harber, J. R. (1983). The effects of illustrations on the reading performance of learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Harm, M. V., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106, 491–528.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Harrison, C. (2012). Literacy, technology, and the Internet: What are the challenges and opportunities for learners with reading difficulties, and how do we support them in meeting those challenges and grasping those opportunities? In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 111–132). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Henry, L. A., Castek, J., O’Byrne, W. I., & Zawilinski, L. (2012). Using peer collaboration to support online reading, writing, and communication: An empowerment model for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 28, 279–306.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Høien, T. (2014). Logos - Teoribasert diagnostisering av lesevansker [Logos - Theory based assessment of reading difficulties]. Bryne: Logometrica.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling, 61, 173–190.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jacobson, C. (1995). Word Recognition Index (WRI) as a quick screening marker of dyslexia. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 16, 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Jian, Y.-C., & Ko, H.-W. (2017). Influences of text difficulty and reading ability on learning illustrated science texts for children: An eye movement study. Computers & Education, 113, 263–279.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178–179.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Johnston, R., Pitchford, N. J., Roach, N. W., & Ledgeway, T. (2016). Why is processing of global motion impaired in adults with developmental dyslexia? Brain and Cognition, 108, 20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jones, M. W., Branigan, H. P., Hatzidak, A., & Obregon, M. (2010). Is the “naming” deficit in dyslexia a misnomer? Cognition, 116, 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Katz, R. B. (1986). Phonological deficiencies in children with reading-disability: Evidence from an object-naming task. Cognition, 22, 225–257.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kingsley, T., & Tancock, S. (2013). Internet inquiry: Fundamental competencies for online comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 67, 389–399.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. (2007). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 289–304). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Klinkenberg, J. E., & Skaar, E. (2003). STAS: Standardisert test i avkoding og staving [STAS: Standarized test of decoding and spelling]. Hønefoss: Ringerike PPT.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. ECTJ, 30, 195–232.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  68. MacCullagh, L., Bosanquet, A., & Badcock, N. (2017). University students with dyslexia: A qualitative exploratory study of learning practices, challenges, and strategies. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 23, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  69. MacFarlane, A., Al-Wabil, A., Marshall, A., Albrair, C. R., Jones, S. A., & Zaphiris, P. (2010). The effect of dyslexia on information retrieval: A pilot study. Journal of Documentation, 66, 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Martens, V. E. G., & De Jong, P. F. (2008). Effects of repeated reading on the length effect in word and pseudoword reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Mason, L., Junyent, A. A., & Tornatora, M. C. (2014). Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers & Education, 76, 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, H., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  75. McCarthy, J. E., & Swierenga, S. J. (2010). What we know about dyslexia and Web accessibility: A research review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9, 147–152.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S. A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 322–352.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Olander, M. H., Brante, E. W., & Nyström, M. (2017). The effect of illustration on improving text comprehension in dyslexic adults. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 23, 42–65.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 28–53.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ramus, F., Rosen, S., Dakin, S. C., Day, B. L., Castellote, J. M., White, S., et al. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: Insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126, 841–865.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ransby, M. J., & Swanson, H. L. (2003). Reading comprehension skills of young adults with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 538–555.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Roca, J., Tejero, P., & Insa, B. (2018). Accident head? Difficulties of drivers with and without reading impairment recognizing words and pictograms in variable message signs. Applied Ergonomics, 67, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Rose, T. L. (1986). Effects of illustrations on reading comprehension of learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 542–544.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2014). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 813–841). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 272–287.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Sass, S., & Schütte, K. (2016). Helping poor readers demonstrate their science competence: Item characteristics supporting text-picture comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., & McElvany, N. (2017). Development of students’ text-picture integration and reading competence across grades 5–7 in a three-tier secondary school system: A longitudinal study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 152–169.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & van Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working memory in multimedia instruction: Is working memory working during learning from text and pictures? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 389–411.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Seidenberg, M. S. (2007). Connectionist models of reading. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 235–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). Paying attention to reading: The neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 1329–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Smith-Spark, J. H., & Fisk, J. E. (2007). Working memory functioning in developmental dyslexia. Memory, 15, 34–56.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Snowling, M. J., van Wagtendonk, B., & Stafford, C. (1988). Object-naming deficits in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 11, 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Strømsø, H. I., Hagtvet, B. E., Lyster, S. A. H., & Rygvold, A. L. (1997). Lese- og skriveprøver for studenter på høyskole- og universitetsnivå [Reading and spelling tests for students in higher education]. Oslo: Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Swanson, H. L., & Trahan, M. F. (1992). Learning disabled readers’ comprehension of computer mediated text: The influence of working memory, metacognition, and attribution. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Taylor, M., Duffy, S., & Hughes, G. (2007). The use of animation in higher education teaching to support students with dyslexia. Education + Training, 49, 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  101. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Nasjonale prøver [National tests]. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from https://www.udir.no/eksamen-og-prover/prover/nasjonale-prover/.

  102. 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, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  103. van Strien, J. L. H., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2014). Dealing with conflicting information from multiple nonlinear texts: Effects of prior attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Vinje, F. E. (1982). Journalistspråket [The journalist language]. Fredrikstad: Institute for Journalism.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Shane Colvin and Arild Moland for help in creating the learning materials, and to Ladislao Salmerón for statistical advice.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivar Bråten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø. & Bråten, I. Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Read Writ 32, 1149–1174 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multiple source use
  • Multimedia learning
  • Dyslexia
  • Working memory