Noticing and Revising Discrepancies as Texts Unfold

Rapp, David N.; Kendeou, Panayiota

doi:10.1080/01638530802629141

Cited by 58 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, narrative reading instructions, such as the task to compose a summary, might foster the formation of a single, coherent situation. Upon noticing conflicting information, readers might then try to resolve conflicts by either reconciling them through inferences or ignoring one of the opposing stances (e.g., Maier & Richter, 2013;Otero & Kintsch, 1992;Rapp & Kendeou, 2009;Tapiero & Otero, 1999).…”

Section: Role Of Reading Goals In Understanding Conflicting Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships

Stadtler

Scharrer

Skodzik

et al. 2013

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding conflicts between sources is an inherent part of science text comprehension. We examined whether readers' memories for conflicts and their situational interpretation of conflicts would be affected by reading goals and lexical cue phrases that signal rhetorical relationships. To this end, 198 undergraduates read multiple documents on a medical controversy either with signals or without, following one of three reading goals (argument, summary, keyword list). Readers' memories for conflicting information were measured with a conflict verification task, and their situational interpretation of conflicts was analyzed from written essays. Results reveal that both argument and summary tasks as well as signaling facilitated verification of conflicts. In their essays, however, summary goal readers reported conflicts more often in a one-sided fashion. In contrast, argument goal readers and those who read texts with signals reported conflicts in a balanced fashion that included source information. Both theoretical and practical implications of the findings for reading about controversial scientific issues are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Role Of Reading Goals In Understanding Conflicting Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships

Stadtler

Scharrer

Skodzik

et al. 2013

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, Kendeou and colleagues have empirically identified the explanation component in refutations as a key determinant of their success (Kendeou et al, 2013. Specifically, in a series of experiments, they found that refutations with explanations were more effective than refutations without explanations at eliminating the activation of incorrect information during reading Rapp & Kendeou, 2009). Specifically, refutations with strong explanations, defined as multiple sentences that lead to a rich, recursive, and interconnected network of information, resulted in faster reading times of sentences stating the correct conceptions than weaker single-sentence explanations .…”

Section: Refutation Text and Knowledge Revisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescents’ epistemic profiles in the service of knowledge revision

Trevors

Kendeou

Bråten

et al. 2017

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Refutation texts have been previously shown to be effective at promoting knowledge revision. The current study builds on recent trends to gain deeper insights into how this learning advantage can be enhanced and extended to more learners. In particular, we examined whether distinct epistemic profiles can be discerned on the basis of individuals' beliefs about justification for knowing (i.e., justification by authority, personal opinion, or multiple sources) in the natural sciences. Further, we designed refutation texts according to this trichotomous framework of epistemic justification. We tested whether profiles stronger in certain dimensions would attain higher learning scores over others and whether consistency between profiles and texts would confer a learning advantage compared to when these factors were inconsistent. Results showed that distinct epistemic profiles are discernable and a profile with stronger preference for justification by multiple sources, authority, and lower preference for justification by personal opinion in natural science attained higher learning scores. Further, higher learning scores were observed when refutation texts justified by authoritative explanations were consistent with one cluster dominant in preference for justification by authority. Theoretical and instructional design implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…Recently, empirical investigations have sought to explain why refutations are effective by examining the moment‐to‐moment (or online) comprehension processes during reading. When presented with refutations, readers in these studies attended to logical inconsistencies between the text and their mental text representations (McCrudden & Kendeou, ; Rapp & Kendeou, , ). The capacity to coactivate contradictory ideas allows for their comparison, which is related to readers' reported experience of cognitive conflict (van den Broek & Kendeou, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of text structure, reading goals and epistemic beliefs on conceptual change

Trevors

Muis

2014

Journal Research in Reading

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the online and offline effects of learner and instructional characteristics on conceptual change of a robust misconception in science. Fifty-nine undergraduate university students with misconceptions about evolution were identified as espousing evaluativist or non-evaluativist epistemic beliefs in science. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a traditional or refutational text that discussed a misconception in evolution and a general comprehension or elaborative interrogation reading goal. Participants' cognitive and metacognitive processes while reading were measured using a think-aloud protocol. Postreading, participants' correct and incorrect conceptual knowledge were separately assessed with a transference essay. Results showed that text structure and reading goals affected cognitive conflict, coherence-building and elaborative processing while reading and promoted correct conceptual knowledge included in essays but failed to affect the inclusion of misconceptions. Further, participants with evaluativist epistemic beliefs engaged in fewer comprehension monitoring processes and were more likely to adapt their coherence-building processes according to reading goals than their non-evaluativist counterparts, but epistemic belief groups did not differ in the content of the posttest essay. Theoretical and educational implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Noticing and Revising Discrepancies as Texts Unfold

Abstract: To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0163853080262914

Cited by 58 publications

References 82 publications

Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships

Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships

Adolescents’ epistemic profiles in the service of knowledge revision

Effects of text structure, reading goals and epistemic beliefs on conceptual change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About