In:Learning to Read in a Digital World
Edited by Mirit Barzillai, Jenny Thomson, Sascha Schroeder and Paul van den Broek
[Studies in Written Language and Literacy 17] 2018
► pp. 91–120
Chapter 4Comprehension processes in digital reading
Published online: 9 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal
https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal
Abstract
The Internet offers readers the unique opportunity to access rich information scenarios, but doing so requires the use of advanced digital reading skills. Examples of such scenarios are searching and acquiring information from multiple sources (e.g., hypertext, images, videos) and participating in the social exchange of information (e.g., web forums, social networks, commenting newspapers). In such scenarios, the reader has to cope with (a) the constantly growing number of available information sources, (b) the different formats in which digital information is presented, and (c) the varying quality of the information available. To deal with these affordances, individuals need to possess reading skills that go beyond what is needed to understand a single text alone. Such advanced reading skills include: (a) search and navigation skills to select relevant web pages and hyperlinks and to avoid getting lost in hyperspace; (b) the ability to integrate multiple pieces of information and multiple presentation formats (texts from different web pages, text and animations); and (c) critical evaluation skills (e.g., assessing the trustworthiness of information on a web page and evaluating the quality of a comment from a social network). Existing literature suggests that children and adolescents possess some of these skills, but that students at all levels struggle to apply them in complex scenarios. In the present chapter, we aim to review the literature regarding the skills needed to master the affordances of advanced digital reading scenarios.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Navigation
- 2.1Navigation: Description of the competence
- 2.1.1How readers select web pages
- 2.1.2How readers navigate across web pages
- 2.2Navigation: Individual differences
- 2.3Navigation: Design influences
- 2.3.1Design influences in the selection of web pages
- 2.3.2Design influences in the navigation across web pages
- 2.1Navigation: Description of the competence
- 3.Integration
- 3.1Integration: Description of the competence
- 3.1.1How readers integrate information from different web pages
- 3.1.2How readers integrate across online modalities
- 3.2Integration: Individual differences
- 3.3Integration: Design influences
- 3.1Integration: Description of the competence
- 4.Evaluation
- 4.1Evaluation: Description of the competence
- 4.1.1How readers evaluate information from web pages
- 4.1.2How readers evaluate information in social media
- 4.2Evaluation: Individual differences
- 4.3Evaluation: Design influences
- 4.1Evaluation: Description of the competence
- 5.Methodologies for the study of digital reading
- 5.1Eye tracking
- 5.2Log files
- 5.3Verbal protocols
- 5.4Evaluation tasks
- 5.5Memory and comprehension tasks
- 6.Discussion and future directions
References
References (138)
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Guilford.
Amadieu, F., & Salmerón, L. (2014). Concept maps for comprehension and navigation of hypertexts. In R. Hanewald & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education (pp. 41–59). New York: Springer.
Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376–386.
Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2013). Teachers’ source evaluation self-efficacy predicts their use of relevant source features when evaluating the trustworthiness of web sources on special education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 821–836.
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, 873–894.
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.
Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.
Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43, 737–766.
Bendixen, L. D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 15–30.
Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., Jr., & van den Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts: Activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1161–1178.
Betsch, C., Ulshöfer, C., Renkewitz, F., & Betsch, T. (2011). The influence of narrative vs. statistic information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making, 31(5), 742–753.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet. Computers & Education, 53, 1207–1217.
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.
Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 87–110.
Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213.
Cho, B-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 252–289.
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline comprehension skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Locating information within extended hypermedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 287–313.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616–1641.
Duncan, L. G., McGeown, S. P., Griffiths, Y. M., Stothard, S. E., & Dobai, A. (2015). Adolescent reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 209–238.
Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 377–393.
Dyson, M. L. (2005). How do we read text on screen. In H. Van Oostendorp, L. Breure, & A. Dillon (Eds.), Creation, use and deployment of digital information (pp. 279–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eastin, M. S., Yang, M.-S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 211–230.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9, 319–342.
Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (DUX ’03) (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 316–344. .
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 51–53.
Fu, W. T., & Pirolli, P. (2007). SNIF-ACT: A cognitive model of user navigation on the World Wide Web. Human–Computer Interaction, 22, 355–412. [URL].
Gazan, R. (2010). Microcollaborations in a Social Q&A Community. Information Processing & Management, 46, 693–702.
Gerjets, P., & Hellenthal-Schorr, T. (2008). Competent information search in the World Wide Web: development and evaluation of a web training for pupils. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 693–715.
Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21, 220–231.
Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Keßel, Y. (2013). Assessing individual differences in basic computer skills. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 263–275.
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., 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.
Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers and Education, 76, 55–69.
Gwizdka, J. (2009). What a difference a tag cloud makes: Effects of tasks and cognitive abilities on search results interface use. Information Research, 14(4). Retrieved from [URL].
Hahnel, C., Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Kröhne, U. (2016). Effects of linear reading, basic computer skills, evaluating online information, and navigation on reading digital text. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 486–500.
Halverson, K., Siegel, M., & Freyermuth, S. (2010). Non-science majors’ critical evaluation of websites in a biotechnology course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 612–620.
Hertzum, M., Hansen, K. D., & Andersen, H. H. K. (2009). Scrutinising usability evaluation: Does thinking aloud affect behavior and mental workload? Behaviour & Information Technology, 28, 165–181.
Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1467–1484.
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Mayer, R. E., & DaRosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45, 818–826.
Ivanitskaya, L., O’Boyle, I., & Casey, A. M. (2006). Health information literacy and competencies of information age students: Results from the interactive online research readiness self-assessment (RRSA). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e6.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–355.
Juvina, I., & van Oostendorp, H. (2008). Modeling semantic and structural knowledge in web navigation. Discourse Processes, 45, 346–364.
Kammerer, Y., Amann, D., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297–309.
Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1193–1203.
Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and Internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during Web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 83–97.
(2013). The role of thinking-aloud instructions and prior domain knowledge in information processing and source evaluation during Web search. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 716–721). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
(2014a). The role of search result position and source trustworthiness in the selection of web search results when using a list or a grid interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30, 177–191.
(2014b). Quellenbewertungen und Quellenverweise beim Lesen und Zusammenfassen wissenschaftsbezogener Informationen aus multiplen Webseiten. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 42, 7–23.
Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & Gerjets, P. (2016). Is this information source commercially biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source information. Discourse Processes, 53, 430–456.
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.
Keil, F. C., & Kominsky, J. F. (2013). Missing links in middle school: Developing use of disciplinary relatedness in evaluating Internet search results. PLoS ONE, 8: e67777.
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.
Kim, S., & Oh, S. (2009). Users’ relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 716–727.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48, 169–183.
Kornmann, J., Kammerer, Y., Anjewierden, A., Zettler, I., Trautwein, U., & Gerjets, P. (2016). How children navigate a multiperspective hypermedia environment: The role of spatial working memory capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 145–158.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2008). Integrating critical Web skills and content knowledge: Development and evaluation of a 5th grade educational program. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 666–692.
Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26, 335–362.
Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 385–399.
(1998). Domain knowledge, interest and hypertext navigation: A study of individual differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 51–69.
Lawless, K. A., Mills, R., & Brown, S. W. (2002). Children’s hypertext navigation strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 274–284.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 37–59.
Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013). Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 254–264.
Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 204–226.
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.
MaKinster, J. G., Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can’t I find Newton’s Third Law?: Case studies of students using of the Web as a science resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 155–172.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.
Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E‐readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Ariasi, N. (2014). Reading information about a scientific phenomenon on web pages varying for reliability: An eye-movement analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 663–685.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–284). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439.
Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 263–277.
(2008). Log file analysis in hypertext research: An overview, a meta-analysis, and some suggestions for future research. In J. J. Cañas (Ed.), Workshop on cognition and the web: Information processing, comprehension and learning (pp. 53–56). Granada, Spain: University of Granada.
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2008). Working memory capacity and reading skill moderate the effectiveness of strategy trainings in learning from hypertext. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 197–213.
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791–213.
Naumann, J., & Salmerón, L. (2016). Does navigation always predict performance? Effects of relevant page selection on digital reading performance are moderated by offline comprehension skills. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17, 42–59.
Olive, T., Rouet, J.-F., Francois, E., & Zampa, V. (2008). Summarizing digital documents: Effects of alternate or simultaneous window display. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 541–558.
Olston, C., & Chi, E. H. (2003). ScentTrials: Integrating browsing and searching on the Web. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10, 177–197.
Ophir, E., Nass, C. I., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 106, 15583–15587.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801–823.
Paul, J., Macedo-Rouet, M., Stadtler, M., & Rouet, J.-F. (2016). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37.
Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage, 62, 816–847.
Puntambekar, S., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Effect of visual representation of the conceptual structure of the domain on science learning and navigation in a hypertext environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 429.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Noller, S. (2003). LOGPAT: A semi-automatic way to analyze hypertext navigation behavior. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 113.
Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145–161.
Robins, D., & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in a website design. Information Processing & Management, 44, 386–399.
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Rouet, J.-F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Dinet, J. (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on primary and secondary school students’ assessment of relevance in Web menus. Learning and Instruction, 21, 205–219.
Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40, 171–191.
Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., & Naumann, J. (2015). How adolescents navigate Wikipedia to answer questions. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 38, 435–471.
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Comprehension effects of signaling relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 419–426.
Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Comprehension skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1143–1151.
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning with hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1157–1171.
Salmerón, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Rouet, J-F. (2016). Multiple viewpoints increase students’ attention to source features in social question and answer forum messages. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2404–2419.
Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (in press). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye-tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 10.1111/jcal.12152
Sanchez, C., & Wiley, J. (2009). To scroll or not to scroll: Interactions of text presentation and working memory capacity. Human Factors, 51, 730–738.
Scheiter, K., & Van Gog, T. (2009). Using eye tracking in applied research to study and stimulate the processing of information from multi-representational sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1209–1214.
Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361–387.
Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231–243.
Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). You’d better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 465–471.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and inference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.
Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Learning in a sheltered Internet environment: The use of Webquests. Learning and Instruction, 19, 423–432.
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (in press). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education.
Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 362–366.
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210.
(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: MIT Press.
Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (in press). Learning from multiple documents: How can we foster multiple document literacy skills in a sustainable way? In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice.Singapore: Routledge.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29, 705–729.
Stadtler, M., Paul, J., Globoschütz, S., & Bromme, R. (2015). Watch out! - An instruction raising students’ epistemic vigilance augments their sourcing activities. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2278–2283). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176–203.
Subrahmanyam, K., Michikyan, M., Clemmons, C., Carrillo, R., Uhls, Y. T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2013). Learning from paper, learning from screens: Impact of screen reading and multitasking conditions on reading and writing among college students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3, 1–27.
Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2011). Navigation behaviors and strategies used by middle school students to learn from a science hypertext. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20, 387.
Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2015). Learning with digital texts: Exploring the impact of prior domain knowledge and reading comprehension ability on navigation and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 299–313.
Sung, Y. T., Wu, M. D., Chen, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior and performance of fifth-graders: Evidence from eye-movement data. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 665.
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.
van Oostendorp, H. (2002). Updating mental representations during reading scientific text. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 309–329). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Strien, J. L. H., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruvel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252.
Vibert, N., Ros, C., Le Bigot, L., Ramond, M., Gatefin, J., & Rouet, J.-F. (2009). Effects of domain knowledge on reference search with the PubMed database: An experimental study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1423–1447.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817–826.
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52, 234–246.
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruvel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behavior while searching the Internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125–146.
White, R. W., Dumais, S. T., & Teevan, J. (2009). Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on Web search behavior. In R. Baeza Yates et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’09) (pp. 132–142). New York: ACM Press.
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1136–1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez. C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal. 46, 1060–1106.
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276.
Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80–96.
Cited by (77)
Cited by 77 other publications
Anghel, Ella, Erin Wry & Matthias von Davier
Bruggink, Marian, Nicole Swart, Annelies van der Lee & Eliane Segers
Bruggink, Marian, Nicole Swart, Annelies van der Lee & Eliane Segers
Bråten, Ivar, Ymkje E. Haverkamp & Øistein Anmarkrud
de Azevedo, Bruno, Davi Alves Oliveira, Ingrid Finger & Leda Maria Braga Tomitch
do Amaral, Juliana, Ladislao Salmerón & Davi Alves Oliveira
McGrath, Catherine A., Jason L.G. Braasch, Laura K. Allen & Erica D. Kessler
Norberg, Kole A., Hyeju Han, Byeong-Young Cho & Scott H. Fraundorf
Overstreet, Matthew
Pleau, Joannie
Tabullo, Ángel Javier, Gastón Ignacio Saux & María Rufina Pearson
Troncoso-Ruiz, Aurora, Marco van de Ven, Jos Keuning, Naomi van Bergen, Anouk Bakker, Liesbeth Crajé-Tilanus & Eliane Segers
van Moort, Marianne L., Amy de Bruïne & Paul van den Broek
Espinas, Daniel R. & Brennan W. Chandler
Griffin, Robert A. & Diana Mindrila
Incognito, Oriana & Christian Tarchi
Kocaarslan, Mustafa & Ahmet Yamaç
Krenca, Klaudia, Emily Taylor & S. Hélène Deacon
Li, Chenyang & Fu Chen
Macedo-Rouet, Mônica, Gastón Saux, Anna Potocki, Emilie Dujardin, Yann Dyoniziak, Jean Pylouster & Jean-François Rouet
Martínez, Magalí Ayelén, Gaston Saux, Franco Londra & Debora I. Burin
Mironova, K.V., N.A. Borisenko & S.V. Shishkova
Pleau, Joannie, Jean-Bernard Carrier & Gabrielle Ross
Tabullo, Ángel-Javier & Enrique-Salvador Pulifiato-Hamann
Tsalapova, Oksana & Marina Fedorenko
Hahnel, Carolin, Ulf Kroehne & Frank Goldhammer
Hahnel, Carolin, Dara Ramalingam, Ulf Kroehne & Frank Goldhammer
He, Qiwei, Francesca Borgonovi & Javier Suárez‐Álvarez
Hildenbrand, Lena & Jennifer Wiley
Hoch, Emely & Tim Fütterer
Lee, Hye Yeon & Alexandra List
List, Alexandra
Londra, Franco & Gastón Saux
Sanchiz, M., F. Amadieu, J. Lemarié & A. Tricot
Fajardo, Inmaculada, Vicenta Ávila, Pablo Delgado, Nadina Gómez‐Merino & Ladislao Salmerón
Kerneža, Maja & Metka Kordigel Aberšek
Mason, Lucia, Angelica Moè, Maria Caterina Tornatora & Angelica Ronconi
Mastrobattista, Ludovica & Javier Merchán-Sánchez-Jara
Oh, Chen May, Pramela Krish & Afendi Hamat
van den Broek, Paul & Panayiota Kendeou
Burin, Debora I., Federico M. González, Magali Martínez & Jonathan G. Marrujo
Coiro, Julie
Hämäläinen, Elina K., Carita Kiili, Eija Räikkönen & Miika Marttunen
Nash, Brady L.
Nash, Brady L.
Nash, Brady L.
Saux, Gaston, Mary Anne Britt, Nicolas Vibert & Jean‐François Rouet
Soliman, Maha
Stenseth, Tonje
Yang, Junfeng, Ahmed Tlili, Ronghuai Huang, Rongxia Zhuang & Kaushal Kumar Bhagat
Borisenko, Natalya Anatol'evna, Ksenia Vadimovna Mironova, Svetlana Viktorovna Shishkova & Genrietta Grigor'evna Granik
Burin, Debora I., Federico Martin Gonzalez, Juan Pablo Barreyro & Irene Injoque-Ricle
Böhme, Richard & Meike Munser-Kiefer
Böhme, Richard, Meike Munser-Kiefer & Sarah Prestridge
Chen, Keliang, Yunxiao Zu & Yansong Cui
Delgado, Pablo, Elisabeth Stang Lund, Ladislao Salmerón & Ivar Bråten
Hahn, Oliver, Steffen Lemke, Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters
Parodi Sweis, Giovanni, Tomás Moreno-de-León & Cristobal Julio
Philipp, Maik
Rouet, Jean-François, Julie Ayroles, Mônica Macedo-Rouet & Anna Potocki
Strømsø, Helge I., Ivar Bråten & Eva W. Brante
Vanhees, Claudio, Mathea Simons & Vanessa Joosen
Vanhees, Claudio, Mathea Simons & Vanessa Joosen
Weyergang, Cecilie & Tove Stjern Frønes
Beker, Katinka, Paul van den Broek & Dietsje Jolles
Delgado, Pablo, Vicenta Ávila, Inmaculada Fajardo & Ladislao Salmerón
Mangen, Anne, Gérard Olivier & Jean-Luc Velay
Máñez, Ignacio, Eduardo Vidal-Abarca, Panayiota Kendeou & Tomás Martínez
Naumann, Johannes
Riddell, Judith E.
Riddell, Judith E.
Salmerón, Ladislao & Pablo Delgado
Salmerón, Ladislao & Ana Llorens
Barzilai, Sarit, Asnat R. Zohar & Shiri Mor-Hagani
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
