Abstract
Learning from multiple documents is an essential ability in today’s society. This experimental study used concept network analysis to consider how reading prompts and post-reading generative learning tasks can alter students’ documents integration performance. Undergraduates (N = 119) read three documents about Alzheimer’s disease with one of two reading prompts (integrative prompts vs. detailed prompts) and then after reading completed a generative learning task (concept mapping vs. summary writing). Three days later they completed a delayed writing task and an inference verification test. Participants’ written texts were converted to concept networks to evaluate conceptual level integration, including the quantity of integration (measured by the proportion of integrative links), the semantic quality of integration (measured by the similarity of integrative links), and the structural quality of integration (measured by comparing network graph centrality). Results showed that the integrative prompts relative to the detailed prompts enhanced the quantity of integration but not the semantic and structural quality. Further, concept mapping relative to summary writing significantly improved the structural quality of integration. In summary, this study describes a new concept network approach for measuring different aspects of integration to advance theory and research in multiple document comprehension.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006.
Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Is working memory working? The Fifteenth Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401281.
Barzilai, S., Tal-Savir, D., Abed, F., Hagani-Mor, S., & Zohar, A. (2023). Mapping multiple documents: From constructing multiple document models to argumentative writing. Reading and Writing, 36, 809–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10208-8.
Bigot, L. L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701675317.
Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition Learning, 6, 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.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. (2020). Multiple document comprehension. In M. A. Britt & J.-F. Rouet, Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.867.
Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2021). KReC-MD: Knowledge revision with multiple documents. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y.
Carpenter, B. D., Balsis, S., Otilingam, P. G., Hanson, P. K., & Gatz, M. (2009). The Alzheimer’s Disease knowledge scale: Development and psychometric properties. The Gerontologist, 49(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp023.
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.
Cerdán, R., Candel, C., & Leppink, J. (2018). Cognitive load and learning in the study of multiple documents. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00059
Chen, X., Li, Z., Wei, Z., & Clariana, R. B. (2022). The influence of the conceptual structure of external representations when relearning history content. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71, 415–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10176-y
Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., & Wen, H. (2019). Effects of intertextual processing on L2 integrated writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.004.
Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2004). A computer-based approach for translating text into concept map-like representations. In A. J. Canas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonzales, (Eds.), Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (vol. 2, pp.131–134). Pamplona, Spain.
Clariana, R. B., Koul, R., & Salehi, R. (2006). The criterion-related validity of a computer-based approach for scoring concept maps. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33, 317–326. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/64253.
Clariana, R. B., Rysavy, M. D., & Taricani, E. (2015). Text signals influence team artifacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9362-5.
Clariana, R. B., & Solnosky, R. (2023). Anchoring concepts influence essay conceptual structure and test performance. In D. G. Sampson, D. Ifenthaler & P. Isaías (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age – CELDA 2023 (pp. 241–248). IADIS Press.
Clariana, R. B., Tang, H., & Chen, X. (2022). Corroborating a sorting task measure of individual and of local collective knowledge structure. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 1195–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10123-x.
Clariana, R. B., Wallace, P. E., & Godshalk, V. M. (2009). Deriving and measuring group knowledge structure from essays: The effects of anaphoric reference. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(6), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9115-z.
Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.109.
Du, H., & List, A. (2020). Researching and writing based on multiple texts. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote Generative Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002.
Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children’s single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders’ multiple-document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12288.
Follmer, D. J., Fang, S. -Y., Clariana, R. B., Meyer, B. J. F., & Li, P. (2018). What predicts adult readers’ understanding of stem texts? Reading and Writing, 31(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9781-x.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.
Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. (2010a). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002.
Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. (2010b). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 30–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902733600.
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept maptasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5.
Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U., Goldhammer, F., Schoor, C., Mahlow, N., & Artelt, C. (2019). Validating process variables of sourcing in an assessment of multiple document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12278.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9.
Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035505.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40929365.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 528–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620.
Kim, M. (2012). Cross-validation study of methods and technologies to assess mental models in a complex problem solving situation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.018.
Kim, K., & Clariana, R. B. (2015). Knowledge structure measures of reader’s situation models across languages: Translation engenders richer structure. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 249–268.
Kim, K., & Clariana, R. B. (2017). Text signals influence second language expository text comprehension: Knowledge structure analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 909–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9494-x.
Kim, M., & McCarthy, K. S. (2021). Using graph centrality as a global index to assess students’ mental model structure development during summary writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 971–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09942-1.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Latini, N., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Salmerón, L. (2019). Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797.
Lehmann, T., Rott, B., & Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2019). Promoting pre-service teachers’ integration of professional knowledge: Effects of writing tasks and prompts on learning from multiple documents. Instructional Science, 47, 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9472-2.
Lehmann, T., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Schmidt-Borcherding, F. (2020). Fostering integrated mental models of different professional knowledge domains: Instructional approaches and model-based analyses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 905–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09704-0.
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 778–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.778.
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412275
List, A. (2019). Drawing is integrating: An examination of students’ graphic representations of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 40, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2019.1629517.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52, 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014.
List, A., & Du, H. (2021). Reasoning beyond history: Examining students’ strategy use when completing a multiple text task addressing a controversial topic in education. Reading and Writing, 34(4), 1003–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10095-5.
List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003.
Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549.
Mahlow, N., Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U., Artelt, C., Goldhammer, F., & Schoor, C. (2020). More than (single) text comprehension? - on university students’ understanding of multiple documents. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562450.
Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Zaccoletti, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Webpage reading: Psychophysiological correlates of emotional arousal and regulation predict multiple-text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.020.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529279.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9342-2
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2010). The effects of relevance instructions and verbal ability on text processing. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224529.
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001.
McCrudden, M. T., Kulikowich, J. M., Lyu, B., & Huynh, L. (2022). Promoting integration and learning from multiple complementary texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(8), 1832–1843. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000746.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In The psychology of learning and motivation. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(09)51009-2
Micai, M., Vulchanova, M., & Saldana, D. (2021). Reading goals and executive function in autism: An eye-tracking study. Autism Research, 14(5), 1007–1024. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2447.
National Institute of Health (2021). Alzheimer’s and Aging Resources for Students. Retrieved from https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-and-aging-resources-students.
O’donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013132527007.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In van H. Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Text-guided automated self assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, J. M. Spector, P. Isaias, & D. Sampson (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 217–225). Springer.
Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294.
Primor, L., Yeari, M., & Katzir, T. (2021). Choosing the right question: The effect of different question types on multiple text integration. Reading and Writing, 34(6), 1539–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10127-8.
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). IAP 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.
Royer, J. M., Hastings, C. N., & Hook, C. (1979). A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967909547341.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.002.
Salmerón, L., Sampietro, A., & Delgado, P. (2020). Using Internet videos to learn about controversies: Evaluation and integration of multiple and multimodal documents by primary school students. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103796
Schneider, M. (2012). Knowledge integration. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1684–1686). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_807.
Schoor, C., Hahnel, C., Mahlow, N., Klagges, J., Kroehne, U., Goldhammer, F., & Artelt, C. (2020). Multiple document comprehension of university students. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, H. A. Pant, M. Toepper, & C. Lautenbach (Eds.), Student learning in german higher education: Innovative measurement approaches and research results (pp. 221–240). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27886-1_11.
Schvaneveldt, R. W., Dearholt, D. W., & Durso, F. T. (1988). Graph theoretic foundations of pathfinder networks. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 15(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-1221(88)90221-0.
Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T., & Dearholt, D. W. (1989). Network structures in proximity data. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 24, 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60539-3.
Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019640.
Schwendimann, B. A. (2014). Making sense of knowledge integration maps. In D. Ifenthaler, & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital Knowledge maps in Education (pp. 17–40). Springer. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_2.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769996.
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(1–2), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2013.855535.
Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (2002). Impact of reading purpose on incidental word learning from context. Language Learning, 52(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00178.
Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327.
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206376.
van Meter, P. N., & Cameron, C. (2018). The effects of presentation format on multiple document notetaking. Learning and Instruction, 57, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.002.
van Peppen, L. M., Verkoeijen, P., Heijltjes, A., Janssen, E., & van Gog, T. (2021). Repeated retrieval practice to foster students’ critical thinking skills. Collabra-Psychology, 7(1), 28881. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.28881.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Mañá, A., Llorens, A. C., & Ferris, R. (2011). Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with read&answer. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1.
von der Muhlen, 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, 29(8), 1677–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0.
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(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Steffens, B., & Britt, M. A. (2020). Epistemic beliefs about the value of integrating information across multiple documents in history. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101266.
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.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433554.
Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2018). Practical statistical power analysis using Webpower and R. ISDSA press.
Acknowledgements
Funding source Division of Undergraduate Education of the National Science Foundation (Award Abstract # 2215807), Roy B. Clariana (PI).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest in this investigation.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
The instructions for the reading task and post-reading generative learning tasks
Instructions for the reading task
During this task, you need to read documents with the following question: [the focus questions for the given reading prompts shown here]. You can click the buttons in the center to switch the present document. The content in the document is masked by default and you need to move the mouse cursor to each paragraph to show it. You can also move the mouse cursor to the right widget to check the instructions.
Instructions for the concept mapping task
During this task, you need to construct a concept map to summarize the documents when considering the following question: [the focus questions for the given reading prompts shown here]. You can click the buttons in the center to show concepts in each document. Note that you only can use thirteen concepts to construct your map, and the common concept Alzheimer’s disease is compulsory to use. Drag: left click a concept to drag it from the concept list to the canvas to use it, you can also drag it back to the concept list to remove it. Link: right click two concepts successively to create a link between them, and do the same operation again if you want to delete the link.
Instructions for the summary writing task
During this task, you need to construct a summary to summarize the documents when considering the following question: [the focus questions for the given reading prompts shown here]. You can click the buttons in the center to show concepts in each document. Note that you only can use thirteen concepts to construct your summary, and the common concept Alzheimer’s disease is compulsory to use.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wei, Z., Zhang, Y., Clariana, R.B. et al. The effects of reading prompts and of post-reading generative learning tasks on multiple document integration: evidence from concept network analysis. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 661–685 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10326-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10326-w