Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 193–232 | Cite as

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



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.


Epistemic 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.

Supplementary material

11409_2016_9165_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (335 kb)
ESM 1 Appendix A (PDF 334 kb)
11409_2016_9165_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (765 kb)
ESM 2 Appendix B (PDF 764 kb)
11409_2016_9165_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (331 kb)
ESM 3 Appendix C (PDF 330 kb)


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dean, D. J., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. Discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397. doi: 10.1002/sce.20194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20(2), 159–165.Google Scholar
  32. 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..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. 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: Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  46. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York. NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.
  58. 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
  59. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Bagrut eligibility information - 2013-2014 Retrieved June 9, 2016 from
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1).Google Scholar
  77. OECD (2011). Pisa 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance. Paris, France: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  87. 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
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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
  90. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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
  93. Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates.Google Scholar
  94. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson.Google Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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
  98. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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.
  102. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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
  104. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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
  106. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations