CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making sources visible: Promoting multiple document literacy with digital epistemic scaffolds

Barzilai, Sarit, Mor-Hagani, Shiri, Zohar, Asnat R., Shlomi-Elooz, Talia, Ben-Yishai, Ruthy·2020·Computers & Education
DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103980
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103980

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Alexander, 2012, Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century, Educational Psychologist, 47, 259, 10.1080/00461520.2012.722511 · DOI
  2. Bannert, 2012, Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts, Instructional Science, 40, 193, 10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4 · DOI
  3. Barzilai, 2018, On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27, 353, 10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968 · DOI
  4. Barzilai, 2015, The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints, Learning and Instruction, 36, 86, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003 · DOI
  5. Barzilai, 2017, Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition, Metacognition and Learning, 12, 193, 10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7 · DOI
  6. Barzilai, 2015, Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation, Instructional Science, 43, 737, 10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4 · DOI
  7. Barzilai, 2012, Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources, Cognition and Instruction, 30, 39, 10.1080/07370008.2011.636495 · DOI
  8. Barzilai, 2018, Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices, Educational Psychology Review, 30, 973, 10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Braasch, 2017, The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence, Educational Psychologist, 52, 167, 10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219 · DOI
  10. Brand-Gruwel, 2018, Instruction to promote information problem solving on the internet in primary and secondary education: A systematic literature review, 401
  11. Brand-Gruwel, 2009, A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet, Computers & Education, 53, 1207, 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004 · DOI
  12. Brante, 2018, Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills, Educational Psychology Review, 30, 773, 10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7 · DOI
  13. Bråten, 2014, Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension, Learning and Instruction, 30, 9, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002 · DOI
  14. Bråten, 2015, Establishing trustworthiness when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence, Reading Psychology, 36, 315, 10.1080/02702711.2013.864362 · DOI
  15. Bråten, 2013, Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation, Reading and Writing, 26, 321, 10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x · DOI
  16. Britt, 2002, Improving students' ability to identify and use source information, Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485, 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2 · DOI
  17. Britt, 2019, A reasoned approach to dealing with fake news, Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 94, 10.1177/2372732218814855 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Britt, 2004, Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks, Reading Psychology, 25, 313, 10.1080/02702710490522658 · DOI
  19. Cho, 2018, Epistemic processing when adolescents read online: A verbal protocol analysis of more and less successful online readers, Reading Research Quarterly, 53, 197, 10.1002/rrq.190 · DOI
  20. Eshet-Alkalai, 2004, Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 93
  21. Fiorella, 2016, Eight ways to promote generative learning, Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717, 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9 · DOI · Paper page
  22. González-Lamas, 2016, Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 39, 49, 10.1080/02103702.2015.1111606 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hilbert, 2008, Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers?, Instructional Science, 36, 53, 10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9 · DOI
  24. Kammerer, 2016, Fostering secondary-school students' intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts, Computers & Education, 102, 52, 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.001 · DOI
  25. Kelly, 2019, Epistemic tools in engineering design for k-12 education, Science Education, 103, 1080, 10.1002/sce.21513 · DOI
  26. Kiili, 2013, Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 248, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00492.x · DOI
  27. Kiili, 2019, Exploring the collaborative synthesis of information during online reading, Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 146, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.033 · DOI
  28. Kingsley, 2015, Successfully promoting 21st century online research skills: Interventions in 5th-grade classrooms, Reading Horizons, 54
  29. Landis, 1977, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33, 159, 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Lewandowsky, 2017, Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · DOI · Paper page
  31. List, 2019, Drawing is integrating: An examination of students' graphic representations of multiple texts, Reading Psychology, 40, 491, 10.1080/02702711.2019.1629517 · DOI
  32. Macedo-Rouet, 2019, How good is this page? Benefits and limits of prompting on adolescents' evaluation of web information quality, Reading Research Quarterly, 10.1002/rrq.241 · DOI
  33. Martínez, 2015, Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality, Journal of Writing Research, 7, 275, 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03 · DOI
  34. Mason, 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, 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016 · DOI
  35. Mateos, 2018, Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources, Cognition and Instruction, 36, 119, 10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Molenaar, 2011, Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement, Instructional Science, 39, 785, 10.1007/s11251-010-9154-1 · DOI
  37. Nokes, 2007, Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492, 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492 · DOI
  38. Paul, 2017, Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries, Computers & Education, 113, 339, 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.020 · DOI
  39. Pérez, 2018, Fostering teenagers' assessment of information reliability: Effects of a classroom intervention focused on critical source dimensions, Learning and Instruction, 58, 53, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.006 · DOI
  40. Quintana, 2004, A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337, 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4 · DOI
  41. Quintana, 2005, A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding, Educational Psychologist, 40, 235, 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_5 · DOI
  42. Raes, 2012, Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning, Computers & Education, 59, 82, 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010 · DOI
  43. Reiser, 2004, Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273, 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Renkl, 2017, Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning, Educational Psychology Review, 29, 599, 10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4 · DOI
  45. Rouet, 2018, From reading comprehension to document literacy: Learning to search for, evaluate and integrate information across texts/de la lectura a la alfabetización documental: Aprender a buscar, evaluar e integrar información de diversos textos, Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 41, 415, 10.1080/02103702.2018.1480313 · DOI
  46. Rukavina, 1996, Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 272, 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.272 · DOI
  47. Sandoval, 2004, Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry, Science Education, 88, 345, 10.1002/sce.10130 · DOI
  48. Schroeder, 2018, Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis, Educational Psychology Review, 30, 431, 10.1007/s10648-017-9403-9 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Settlage, 2019, Epistemic tools for science classrooms: The continual need to accommodate and adapt, Science Education, 103, 1112, 10.1002/sce.21510 · DOI
  50. Spivey, 1989, Readers as writers composing from sources, Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7, 10.1598/RRQ.24.1.1 · DOI
  51. Stadtler, 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, 10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3 · DOI
  52. Stadtler, 2008, Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool Met.A.Ware on the web search of laypersons, Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716, 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023 · DOI
  53. Stadtler, 2014, Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships, Discourse Processes, 51, 93, 10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535 · DOI
  54. Stroupe, 2019, Introduction to special issue: Epistemic tools in science education, Science Education, 103, 948, 10.1002/sce.21512 · DOI
  55. Tabak, 2004, Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305, 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3 · DOI
  56. Twining, 2017, Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies, Computers & Education, 106, A1, 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002 · DOI
  57. Wiley, 2020, Epistemic beliefs about the value of integrating information across multiple documents in history, Learning and Instruction, 65, 101266, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101266 · DOI
  58. Wiley, 2018, Effects of task instructions on comprehension from multiple sources in history and science, 341

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 49

Metadata

Authors
Barzilai, S., Mor-Hagani, S., Zohar, A. R., Shlomi-Elooz, T., & Ben-Yishai, R.
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
157
Pages
103980
ISSN
0360-1315
DOI
10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103980
Cited by
49
References
9
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Israel Science Foundation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making sources visible: Promoting multiple document literacy with digital epistemic scaffolds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103980
The paper
Barzilai, S., Mor-Hagani, S., Zohar, A. R., Shlomi-Elooz, T., & Ben-Yishai, R. (2020). Making sources visible: Promoting multiple document literacy with digital epistemic scaffolds. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103980