Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning to integrate divergent information sources: the interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to note that this description does not imply that all positions are worthy of acceptance or should be given equal weight in the final product. Rather, critical evaluation of sources and their positions should accompany integration processes (Rouet and Britt 2011). Indeed, students were explicitly taught to critically consider source and content reliability and that one of the goals of integration is to identify valid answers.

References

  • Alexander, P. A., & DRLRL (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the twenty-first century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amer, M. (2016). Assessment of the development of epistemic thinking among Druze secondary school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Haifa, Haifa.

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36(0), 86–103. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.636495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.863265.

    Article  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.

  • Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69–80. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1207–1217. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004.

    Article  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., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31. doi:10.1080/01638530902959646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48–70. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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 

  • Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 104–122. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.916217.

    Article  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., Boyes, M., & Ball, L. (1990). Relativism and stations of epistemic doubt. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50(3), 370–395. doi:10.1016/0022–0965(90)90076-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

    Article  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 

  • De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139–156. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174–192. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, D. J., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. Discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397. doi:10.1002/sce.20194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20(2), 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, E., & Bibby, P. (2008). The design and analysis of quasi-experimental field research. In G. M. Breakwell (Ed.), Doing social psychology research (pp. 93–127). Oxford, UK: The British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publishing Ltd..

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25(0), 49–61. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 103–120. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Gasser, U., Cortesi, S., Malik, M., & Lee, A. (2012). Youth and digital media: From credibility to information quality. Retrieved from Berkman Center for Internet & Society website: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2005272

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: a meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255–269. doi:10.1080/10824669.2013.773217.

    Article  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 

  • Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142–160. doi:10.1080/00461520802178458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55–69. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.008.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. doi:10.1080/15248372.2010.485335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2016). Developing epistemological understanding in scientific and social domains through argumentation. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2–3), 109–119. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000172.

    Article  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., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 545–565. doi:10.1348/000709907X268589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.004.

    Article  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. (1991). The skills of argument. New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16(11), 866–870. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9280.2005.01628.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Park, S.-H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 111–124. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 13, 227–247. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90040-5.

    Article  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 

  • Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328. doi:10.1016/s0885–2014(00)00030-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435–451. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.830618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in k-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328. doi:10.3102/00346543075003285.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 51–74. doi:10.1007/s11409–013-9111-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, A. F., & Clinchy, B. M. (2002). Toward the integration of objectivity and subjectivity: Epistemological development from 10 to 16. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2–3), 225–262. doi:10.1016/s0732-118×(02)00008-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1).

  • OECD (2011). Pisa 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance. Paris, France: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, R. J. (1997). Someone with like a life wrote it": the effects of a visible author on high school history students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 235–250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. doi:10.1037/a0022658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan Duncan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, A. (2012). The ‘document-based lesson’: bringing disciplinary inquiry into high school history classrooms with adolescent struggling readers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 233–264. doi:10.1080/00220272.2011.591436.

    Article  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.

  • Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 47–65. doi:10.1007/s11409–009–9038-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinehart, R. W., Golan Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). A scaffolding suite to support evidence-based modeling and argumentation. Science Scope, 38(4), 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 272–287. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.88.2.272.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. doi:10.1002/sce.21006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1990). Effect of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Tabak, I., & Weinstock, M. (2008). A sociocultural exploration of epistemological beliefs. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 177–195). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 623–648. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.030.

    Article  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 

  • Weinstock, M., & Cronin, M. A. (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 161–181. doi:10.1002/acp.860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstock, M., & Zviling-Beiser, H. (2009). Separating academic and social experience as potential factors in epistemological development. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 287–298. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 327–341. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.89.2.327.

    Article  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:10.1037/0022–0663.91.2.301.

  • Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060–1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181–196. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.016.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177–195. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9044-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low and high achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 337–353. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, 199 Abba Khoushy Boulevard, Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

    Sarit Barzilai & Ibtisam Ka’adan

Authors
  1. Sarit Barzilai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibtisam Ka’adan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarit Barzilai.

Ethics declarations

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.

Funding

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1 Appendix A

(PDF 334 kb)

ESM 2 Appendix B

(PDF 764 kb)

ESM 3 Appendix C

(PDF 330 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barzilai, S., Ka’adan, I. Learning to integrate divergent information sources: the interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition Learning 12, 193–232 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation