Effects of context and discrepancy when reading multiple documents

Abstract

On a daily basis, most people read about issues of interest from a diversity of sources. Moreover, the information they encounter frequently encompass discrepancies, ranging from minor inconsistencies to straight contradictions. Readers may construct coherent representations from discrepant contents by linking contents to their respective sources and connecting the sources with agree-disagree or other types of connectives. Across research studies, however, college-level readers' attention to sources has been found to vary according to individual, text and task dimensions. The present study tested the assumption that readers' strategies depend both on the discrepancy of the information and on the context in which the task is framed. Moreover, beliefs about science were included as potential moderator of context effects. One hundred and sixty university students were tasked to read about a series of social-scientific issues. The task was framed in either a university context or a personal context scenario. For each topic, the participants read two short texts which provided either consistent or discrepant information, and then they wrote a short overview essay. The university context had a significant impact on indicators related to a documents model representation (e.g., text switches, number of adversative connectors in the essay) and standards for presentation (e.g., time on the essay/task page, formal features of the essay). The data support a context-dependent view of reading comprehension, whereby both reading behavior and outcomes are primarily a function of the standards and goals set by the reader.

Reading for university or for myself? Effects of context and beliefs about science on college students’ document selection.

“…Our findings complement prior findings on external context effects when reading and writing about multiple documents (Schoor et al, 2023). Schoor et al (2023) found that in a university context, students more often compared texts with each other, used adversative connectors and addressed the discrepancy between texts in an essay. Thus, they consider it more important to convey a complete and accurate picture, in terms of theory: a documents model (e.g., Britt & Rouet, 2012).…”

“…In the prior study, the participants were provided with two documents per target topic and had to actually write an overview essay based on a question that allegedly either their professor or their best friend asked them. In the present study, we focused on the selection stage of the information seeking process and provided the participants with the introductory question in the same way as in Schoor et al (2023), but asked them to select documents for further reading. Of the eight target topics in the Schoor et al (2023) study, we selected only four due to time constraints.…”

“…In the present study, we focused on the selection stage of the information seeking process and provided the participants with the introductory question in the same way as in Schoor et al (2023), but asked them to select documents for further reading. Of the eight target topics in the Schoor et al (2023) study, we selected only four due to time constraints. Based on prior topic belief questions in the Schoor et al (2023) study, we chose four topics for which the participants expressed the least extreme prior topic beliefs.…”

“…A study by Schoor et al (2023) tested the effects of a university versus a personal context scenario on university students’ multiple-document reading behavior and their use of information in an essay. Consistent with RESOLV predictions, they found these external context scenarios involve different reading decisions: Readers in a university context more often switched texts, used more adversative connectors in their essay, more often used a corroborating expression in the essay, and more often explicitly addressed a discrepancy between texts than in a personal context.…”

“…A study by Schoor et al (2023) tested the effects of a university versus a personal context scenario on university students' multipledocument reading behavior and their use of information in an essay. Consistent with RESOLV predictions, they found these external context scenarios involve different reading decisions: Readers in a university context more often switched texts, used more adversative connectors in their essay, more often used a corroborating expression 1 Since the RESOLV framework assumes that a task encompasses more than the explicit instruction and certainly more than the specific question, we use the term "task question" when we refer to the specific question of what to do (e.g., write an overview, write an argumentation, read for understanding), and the term "task" is used to refer to other aspects of the task (e.g., criteria, resources).…”