Learning to integrate divergent information sources: the interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition
- 779 Downloads
Learning to integrate multiple information sources is vital for advancing learners’ digital literacy. Previous studies have found that learners’ epistemic metacognitive knowledge about the nature of knowledge and knowing is related to their strategic integration performance. The purpose of this study was to understand how these relations come into play as students learn to integrate divergent information sources. To do so, we examined the contribution of scaffolds addressing the epistemic strategy of integration and epistemic metastrategic knowledge about this strategy. Participants were 99 high-achieving Arab Israeli ninth graders. All participants engaged in writing arguments based on divergent information sources. Students in the control condition received no scaffolds; students in the strategic condition received a strategic scaffold; and students in the metastrategic condition received both strategic and metastrategic scaffolds. Integration performance, epistemic metastrategic knowledge about integration, and absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist epistemic perspectives were measured before, immediately after, and one month after the intervention. At pre-test, both epistemic metastrategic knowledge about integration and evaluativism were positive predictors of integration performance. The strategic scaffold led to a significant increase in integration performance and epistemic metastrategic knowledge. Adding the metastrategic scaffold led to greater improvement in epistemic metastrategic knowledge, but did not result in additional gains in strategic performance. An immediate decrease in absolutism occurred among all participants but was not sustained over time. A decrease in multiplism occurred only in the experimental groups and was sustained over time. The results suggest that epistemic growth can occur in both bottom-up and top-down directions.
KeywordsEpistemic cognition Epistemic metacognition Epistemic change Multiple document comprehension Integration
We are grateful to the vice-principal, science teacher, and students whose cooperation made this study possible. Maha Amer, Michael Weinstock, and Idit Rappel-London participated in developing the Arabic version of the Epistemic Thinking Assessment. We also thank Michael Weinstock for cultural advice and Øistein Anmarkrud for coding advice. Finally, we thank Clark Chinn, Jeffrey Greene, and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper that helped us improve the presentation of the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was reviewed and approved by the Committee for Human Research Ethics of the University of Haifa (approval 200/14). Participants and their parents gave their informed consent for participation in the study.
This study was funded by a grant to Sarit Barzilai by the I-CORE Program of the Israel Council of Higher Education and the Israel Science Foundation, grant 1716/12.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
- Amer, M. (2016). Assessment of the development of epistemic thinking among Druze secondary school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Haifa, Haifa.Google Scholar
- Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta)cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409–424). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43(6), 737–766. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4.
- Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–43). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
- Bråten, I. (2016). Epistemic cognition interventions: Issues, challenges, and directions. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 360–372). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bråten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. (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(3), 321–348. doi: 10.1007/s11145–012-9371-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9–24. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading - from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2013). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1–24. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017.
- Chandler, M. J., Hallett, D., & Sokol, B. W. (2002). Competing claims about competing knowledge claims. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 145–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 460–478). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Chinn, C. A., Golan Duncan, R., Dianovsky, M., & Rinehart, R. W. (2013). Promoting conceptual change through inquiry. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 539–559). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the air model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information (pp. 425–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20(2), 159–165.Google Scholar
- Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62(0), 100–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
- Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading - from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 141–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9817.2012.01536.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York. NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hofer, B. K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 227–256). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Reliability Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.pp. 641–664). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kienhues, D., Ferguson, L. E., & Stahl, E. (2016). Diverging information and epistemic change. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 318–330). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: what has it told us? Psychological Science, 6(3), 133–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00322.x.
- Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lorch Jr., R. F., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90–101. doi: 10.1037/a0017972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Bagrut eligibility information - 2013-2014 Retrieved June 9, 2016 from http://edu.gov.il/owlHeb/Tichon/BechinotVbagruyot/BechinotAbagrut/Pages/entitlement-data-2014.aspx
- Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., Azevedo, R., Trevors, G., Meier, E., & Heddy, B. C. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 39, 168–183. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officer. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts. Washington D.C: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
- Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1).Google Scholar
- Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10648–015–9340-4.
- Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Rule, D. C., & Bendixen, L. D. (2010). The integrative model of personal epistemology development: Theoretical underpinnings and implications for education. In L. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 94–123). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Weinstock, M. (2010). Epistemological development of bedouins and jews in israel: Implications for self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda, E. G. Creamer, & P. S. Meszaros (Eds.), Refining understanding of the development and assessment of self-authorship (pp. 117–132). Sterling VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
- Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, –311. doi: 10.1037/0022–06220.127.116.111.
- Wineburg, S. S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2012). Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high school history classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: Definitions, students’ learning, and teachers’ professional development. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 197–223). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar