Search

This study examines three core processes in undergraduates' reasoning about four different evidence types (i.e., anecdotal, observational, correlational, and causal). In particular, we examine undergraduates' processes of evidence identification, evaluation, and selection of evidence to include in writing and how these manifest across different evidence types. Undergraduates' justifications for their evidence evaluations and selections were also examined. Results showed that students were successfully able to differentiate anecdotal evidence from other types of quantitative evidence and rated anecdotal evidence as least convincing. At the same time, we found that undergraduates were not able to differentiate among the other three types of evidence (i.e., descriptive/observational, correlational, causal) effectively. Moreover, a variety of criteria were identified in undergraduates' justifications for evidence evaluation and selection. Undergraduates commonly evaluated evidence based on its essential features as well as the methods used for its collection, although justifications differed across evidence types. Undergraduates also commonly considered its essential features when selecting evidence to include in writing. At the same time, undergraduates frequently mismatched the type of evidence provided (e.g., correlational) and its essential characteristics (e.g., describing it as causal). Future directions and instructional implications are discussed.

Background: When learning about complex topics using the Internet, students commonly encounter a multitude of textual, non-textual (e.g., images and graphs), and multimedia (e.g., videos) resources. Yet students' learning from multiple texts and multiple (non-textual) resources (MT-MR learning) has received insufficient consideration in the literature. Aims: We examine the associations among (1) undergraduates' conceptions of reasons for multiple resource access, (2) log-data of resource use when completing a MT-MR task, and (3) writing performance. Sample: Participants were 72 undergraduate students in the United States. Methods: Undergraduates were provided with a library of five texts and one video, with the option of accessing supplemental data (e.g., graphs and maps) in association with each resource. Log-data (e.g., time and supplemental data access) of undergraduates' resource use were collected. Undergraduates were then asked to compose a research report and to describe what they considered the purpose of multiple resource access to be. Results: Four types of conceptions were identified, reflecting a desire to (1) access a lot of information, (2) understand multiple perspectives, (3) corroborate and evaluate information, and (4) develop a personal understanding of a given topic. Undergraduates who considered corroboration and evaluation to be the purpose of multiple resource access were more likely to access more supplemental data sources and performed better on a multiple resource learning task. Conclusions: Undergraduates in our sample held conceptions largely similar to, but in some aspects distinct from, those identified by Barzilai and Zohar (Cognit Instruct, 30, 2012, 39). Conceptions were associated with resource access during task completion and with writing performance.

This study describes an in-depth investigation of students' integration or connection formation across multiple texts. Students were asked to complete two multiple text tasks, differing in the number of texts that they asked students to connect and the variety of cross-textual connections able to be formed. For each task, students were asked to indicate (e.g., highlight) and explain each connection formed. Students' connection formation was analyzed in a variety of ways (e.g., number of texts connected, types of connections identified). Across two tasks, students were found (a) to form more evidentiary (i.e., linking specific information supporting main ideas) than thematic (i.e., linking main ideas across texts) connections, (b) to identify more similarities than differences, and (c) to form comparatively low-level, rather than high-level connections, with levels of connection formation distinguished according to the degree of specificity, abstraction, and elaboration that these reflected. Implications for further research and instruction are discussed.

Given prior work identifying sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization as key strategies needed to learn from multiple texts, this study examines students' multiple text processing and written response composition under three different heuristic conditions. In particular, students were asked to engage in sourcing, corroboration, or contextualization while completing a multiple text task. Then, log data of text access, students' notes, and written responses were analyzed across task conditions. Moreover, each sentence included in students' written responses was linked to information in notes and in the library texts provided. Results indicate that students directed to engage in sourcing both accessed more document information and included more of such information in their notes. More generally, students' response composition was found to be reductive in nature, with students filtering information from library texts into their notes and into the written responses that they composed; at the same time, cross-textual integration was found to be limited.

In this study, we focused on one particular challenge in argumentative writing based on multiple texts: evidence use. Specifically, we first examined undergraduate students' strategy reports when processing evidence presented in conflicting and comparably trustworthy texts. Both surface-level (i.e., restating) and deep-level (e.g., evaluation, elaboration) evidence-related processing strategies were identified in students' typed strategy reports. Second, we examined students' use of text-based evidence in their writing. Students were found to have limitations in both the quantity and quality of evidence use in writing. Finally, we associated students' evidence-related processing strategies with their evidence use in writing. Only the quality of students' evidence use in writing was significantly predicted by their evidence-related processing strategies. However, significant predictors of the quality of evidence use in writing included both surface- and deep-level strategies. Implications for instruction are discussed.

When using the Internet to learn about complex topics or issues, students often encounter information that is both complementary and conflicting. Building on prior work identifying differences in how students reason about multiple conflicting texts, we examine students' connection formation and summative conceptualization of texts systematically designed to vary in a number of ways. We examine students' connection formation and summative conceptualization of texts introducing consistent or conflicting main ideas, accompanied by supporting reasons that are overlapping or distinct. We investigate the extent to which students form three types of connections across texts: "evidentiary" (i.e., corroborating specific information across texts), "thematic" (i.e., connecting main ideas), and "contextual" (i.e., comparing texts' meta-features such as author). Moreover, we analyze how students summatively describe texts related to one another in a variety of ways. In general, the text condition reflecting the greatest degree of cross-textual consistency (i.e., texts that included consistent main ideas and that presented overlapping supporting reasons) resulted in students being able to form a greater number of cross-textual connections, overall, and more evidentiary and thematic connections, in particular, as compared to the most discrepant text condition (i.e., when texts had conflicting main ideas and presented distinct supporting reasons). Discrepant main ideas across texts were found to increase students' contextual connection formation.

In two studies, we develop and evaluate an intervention focused on one significant challenge that undergraduate students have with evidence‐based reasoning—reasoning about different evidence types. Our Evidence‐Based Reasoning intervention teaches students about three common evidence types—comparative, correlational, and causal—often discussed in the popular press. In Study 1, using a within‐subjects design, we find students' performance on an objective evidence‐based reasoning (OEBR) measure to be significantly improved post‐intervention (Cohen's d = 2.05). In Study 2, we add two open‐ended measures to examine the effects of the intervention on students' evaluations of evidence‐based conclusions. We again find students to perform significantly better on the OEBR measure (Cohen's d = 0.96), as well as on two open‐ended conclusion evaluation tasks (Cohen's d = 0.97 and d = 0.69). Moreover, we find some of these benefits to persist on a delayed post‐test, administered three weeks after intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the role of culture in comprehension. Prominent theories of comprehension conceptualized the outcome of reading as learners' construction of a cognitive representation of texts. We emphasize that such representation reflects not only texts' content, but also individuals' understandings of the real world, as described in texts. We suggest that, thus, individuals should be supported to question and analyze the mental representations that they form; we use the term "culture" to capture such questioning and analysis. Rather than an individual difference factor, we argue for conceptualizing culture as a way of thinking, or as individuals' reasoning about the commonalities and differences in their and others' worldviews and the linking of these to underlying values. When such reasoning is engaged in reference to texts, we refer to this as culturalized comprehension; when such reasoning is further engaged to resist or recast the values introduced in texts to generate counternarratives, we refer to this as critical culturalized comprehension. In emphasizing the importance of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension and describing the set of cognitive processes involved, we argue for research in educational psychology to examine how learners may be consciously, reflectively, and critically engaged in using texts to understand their world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]