Memory for Textual Conflicts Predicts Sourcing When Adolescents Read Multiple Expository Texts

Abstract

This study investigated whether memory for conflicting information predicted mental representation of source-content links (i.e., who said what) in a sample of 86 Norwegian adolescent readers. Participants read four texts presenting conflicting claims about sun exposure and health. With differences in gender, prior knowledge, and interest controlled for, and with self-reported critical reading strategies also included in a multiple regression analysis, it was found that the better participants remembered that the texts presented conflicting claims on the issue, the more likely they were to include source-content links in their mental representations of the texts. Theoretical and educational implications of the findings are discussed, and directions for future research are provided.

What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks

“…The finding that topic interest did not explain a unique proportion of the variance (except for one single analysis) corroborates the results of several other studies within multiple document literacy (e.g., Salmerón et al, ; Stang Lund et al, ; Strømsø et al, ). This finding also suggests that the behavioural components that we addressed are much more sensitive indicators of students' engagement in multiple document tasks than is their self‐reported topic interest.…”

“…In the area of multiple document literacy, there is meagre evidence that topic interest actually makes a difference, however. This variable has been included in a number of studies in which upper-secondary and undergraduate students read multiple documents about controversial socio-scientific topics such as climate change and sun exposure and health (Bråten, Anmarkrud, Brandmo, & Strømsø, 2014;Salmerón, Gil, & Bråten, 2018;Stang Lund, Bråten, Brante, & Strømsø, 2017;Strømsø & Bråten, 2009;Strømsø, Bråten, & Britt, 2010). In these studies, topic interest has been only weakly correlated with aspects of multiple document comprehension such as content integration and sourcing, if at all, and in only one study (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009) did topic interest uniquely predict upper-secondary students' multiple document comprehension (i.e., content integration) when other relevant variables (e.g., topic knowledge) were controlled for.…”

Readers’ Selective Recall of Source Features as a Function of Claim Discrepancy and Task Demands

“…The report states that according to a policeman, the fire was caused by a spontaneous short of the electric circuit with no involvement of human action, whereas according to a journalist, the same fire was caused by someone intentionally damaging the system. When two such incompatible or conflicting accounts of the same situation are available to the reader, attention to, memory for, and use of sources has been found to increase significantly, as compared with compatible or consistent versions (e.g., Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012;Kammerer, Kalbfell, & Gerjets, 2016;Rouet, LeBigot, De Pereyra, & Britt, 2016;Salmerón, Macedo-Rouet, & Rouet, 2016;Saux et al, 2017;Stang Lund, Bråten, Brante, & Strømsø, 2017).…”

“…Prior research has examined memory for discrepant or conflicting sources both directly and indirectly. Direct measures include recognition (e.g., Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Stang Lund, Bråten, Brante, & Strømsø 2017.;Saux, Britt, Burin, Irrazabal, & Rouet, 2016;Stadtler, Paul, Globoschütz, & Bromme, 2015;Strømsø, Bråten, & Britt, 2010: Thomm & Bromme, 2016 and cued recall (e.g., Braasch et al, 2012;Rouet et al, 2016;Saux et al, 2017;Steffens, Britt, Braasch, Strømsø, & Bråten 2014). Indirect measures of source memory typically involve analyzing the number of times participants mention information of the sources when producing written summaries or arguments about what they read (e.g., Kammerer et al, 2016;Stadtler, Scharrer, Skodzik, & Bromme, 2014;.…”

Training young adults with intellectual disability to read critically on the internet

“…They were requested to link each statement to one out of three web pages (represented by their logo), or to the statement “This is not said in any of the web pages.” The present authors considered the total number of statements correctly linked to the corresponding web page (max = 7). This task has been used as a measure of source evaluation in previous studies (Kammerer, Meier, & Stahl, ; Stang Lund et al, ; Strømsø et al, ).…”