CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in the Comprehension of Multiple Expository Texts: Toward an Integrated Model

Open access
Bråten, Ivar, Britt, M. Anne, Strømsø, Helge I., Rouet, Jean-François·2011·Educational Psychologist
DOI 10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In present-day knowledge societies, competent reading involves the integration of information from multiple sources into a coherent, meaningful representation of a topic, issue, or situation. This article reviews research and theory concerning the comprehension of multiple textual resources, focusing especially on linkages recently established between dimensions of epistemic beliefs and multiple-text comprehension. Moreover, a proposed model incorporates epistemic beliefs into a theoretical framework for explaining multiple-text comprehension, specifying how and why different epistemic belief dimensions may be linked to the comprehension and integration of multiple texts. Also discussed is the need for further research concerning mediational mechanisms, causality, and generalizability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00461520.2011.538647

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Bråten , I. , Gil , L. , Storey , J. , Strømsø , H. I. , Vidal-Abarca , E. and Britt , M. A. March 2008 . Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring the dimensionality of topic-specific epistemic beliefs in Norway, Spain, and the United States , March , New York, New York : Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association .
  2. Bråten , I. , Gil , L. and Strømsø , H. I. in press . “ The role of different task instructions and reader characteristics when learning from multiple expository texts ” . In Text relevance and learning from text , Edited by: McCrudden , M. T. , Magliano , J. P. and Schraw , G. Greenwich, CT : Information Age .
  3. Bråten , I. and Strømsø , H. I. November 2007 . Personal epistemology and multiple text comprehension: Effects of interactions between epistemic beliefs on students’ deep-level comprehension of multiple texts , November , Austin, Texas : Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference .
  4. 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0 · DOI
  5. Britt , M. A. , Perfetti , C. A. , Sandak , R. and Rouet , J. F. 1999 . “ Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts ” . In Narrative, comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso , Edited by: Goldman , S. R. , Graesser , A. C. and van den Broe , P. 209 – 233 . Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum .
  6. Britt , M. A. and Rouet , J. F. in press . “ Component skills and their acquisition ” . In The quality of learning: Dispostions, instruction, and mental structures , Edited by: Lawson , M. J. and Kirby , J. R. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press .
  7. Cook , T. D. and Campbell , D. A. 1979 . Quasi-experimental design: Design and analysis issues , Chicago, IL : Rand McNally .
  8. Gil , L. , Vidal-Abarca , E. , Bråten , I. and Strømsø , H. I. 2008 . “ Effects of task, topic-specific personal epistemology, and prior knowledge on superficial and deep understanding of multiple texts ” . In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognition and the Web: Information Processing, Comprehension, and Learning , Edited by: Canã , J. J. 133 – 138 . Granada, Spain : University of Granada .
  9. 10.1108/978-1-60752-995-820251014 · DOI
  10. Hagen , Å. , Strømsø , H. I. and Brå , I. August 2009 . Epistemic beliefs and external strategy use when learning from multiple documents , August , Amsterdam, , The Netherlands : Paper presented at the biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction .
  11. Hartman , D. K. 2004 . “ Deconstructing the reader, the text, the author, and the context: Intertextuality and reading from a cognitive perspective ” . In Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research , Edited by: Shuart-Faris , N. and Bloom , D. 353 – 371 . Greenwich, CT : Information Age . · DOI
  12. Maggioni , L. and Fox , E. April 2009 . Adolescents’ reading of multiple history texts: An interdisciplinary investigation of historical thinking, intertextual reading, and domain-specific epistemic beliefs , April , San Diego, CA : Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association .
  13. 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.96 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720 · DOI
  15. Strømsø , H. I. , Bråten , I. and Samuelstuen , M. S. July 2007 . Assessing comprehension of single and multiple texts by verification tasks , July , Glasgow, Scotland : Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse .
  16. 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00041-3 · DOI
  17. Winne , P. H. , Jamieson-Noel , D. and Muis , K. R. 2002 . “ Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning ” . In Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 12: New directions in measures and methods , Edited by: Pintrich , P. R. and Maeh , M. L. 121 – 155 . Amsterdam, , The Netherlands : Elsevier .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 346

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Educational Psychologist
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-01-24
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
48-70
ISSN
  • 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6985
DOI
10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
OpenAlex
W2085114967
Cited by
346
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
36.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
epistemological beliefs, multiple text comprehension, expository texts, reading comprehension, information integration, integrated model, source credibility

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