Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:30:18.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

44 - Multimedia Learning from Multiple Documents

from Part VIII - Multimedia Learning with Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Jean-François Rouet  and
Anne Britt
Edited by
Richard E. Mayer  and
Logan Fiorella
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

Multimedia learning from multiple documents involves the construction of new knowledge, beliefs, or opinions from more than a single source of information. First, we introduce the specific discourse processes that come into play when considering multiple-source documents as opposed to single-source texts or multimedia documents. We focus on the definition and role of sources, and on the semantic and rhetorical relationships at an intertextual level. Then we examine learning from multiple documents from a cognitive standpoint. We define two core principles: the sourcing principle and the multiple document integration principle. Finally, we examine some implications of these principles for a general theory of text-based learning and for instructional practice throughout the K12 and higher education curricula.

Keywords

multiple documentssourcing principlemultiple document integration principleknowledge constructionintertextual comprehension
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 521 - 536
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1061–1070.Google Scholar
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzilai, S., Mor-Hagani, S., Zohar, A. R., Shlomi-Elooz, T., & Ben-Yishai, R. (2020). Making sources visible: Promoting multiple document literacy with digital epistemic scaffolds. Computers & Education, 157, 103980.Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 973–999.Google Scholar
Blaum, D., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Britt, M. A. (2017). Thinking about global warming: The effect of policy-related documents and prompts on learning about causes of climate change. Discourse Processes, 54, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 40, 450–465.Google Scholar
Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 773–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38, 655–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70.Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2010). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192.Google Scholar
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Wineburg, S., Rapaport, A., Carle, J., Garland, M., & Saavedra, A. (2019). Students’ Civic Online Reasoning: A National Portrait. Stanford, CA: Stanford History Education Group & Gibson Consulting.Google Scholar
Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Students’ evaluation of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality, and Coherence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., van Dyke, J., & Gabrys, G. (2000). The sourcer’s apprentice: A tool for document-supported history instruction. In Stearns, P., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (eds.), Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives (pp. 437–470). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In Lawson, M. J. and Kirby, J. R. (eds.), The Quality of Learning (pp. 276–314). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A. & Rouet, J.-F. (2020). Multiple document comprehension. In Zhang, L. (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Blaum, D., & Millis, K. (2019). A reasoned approach to dealing with fake news. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents as entities. In Britt, M. A., Goldman, S. R., & Rouet, J.-F. (eds.), Reading: From Words to Multiple Texts (pp. 160–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. (2018). Literacy beyond Text Comprehension: A Theory of Purposeful Reading. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hasting, P., Larson, A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Automated feedback on source citation in essay writing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 359–374.Google Scholar
Butterfuss, R., Kim, J., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Reading Comprehension. In Zhang, L. (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325.Google Scholar
de Pereyra, G., Britt, M. A., Braasch, J. L. G., & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Reader’s memory for information sources in simple news stories: Effects of text and task features. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, S. R., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). Learning from multiple sources in a digital society. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 86–95). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Greenleaf, C., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., Brown, W., Ko, M. L. M., Emig, J. M., George, M., Wallace, P., Blaum, D., & Britt, M. A. (2019). Explanatory modeling in science through text-based investigation: Testing the efficacy of the Project READI intervention approach. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1148–1216.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web Tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and Internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & Gerjets, P. (2016). Is this information source commercially biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source information. Discourse Processes, 53(5–6), 430–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, D., Kammerer, Y., & Starauschek, E. (2015). Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts? Computers and Education, 82, 442–449.CrossRefGoogle 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, 193–204.Google Scholar
Kim, H. J. & Millis, K. (2006). The influence of sourcing and relatedness on event integration. Discourse Processes, 41, 51–65.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 182–199.Google Scholar
Macedo-Rouet, M., Potocki, A., Scharrer, L., Ros, C., Stadtler, M., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J.F. (2019). How good is this page? Benefits and limits of prompting on teenagers’ assessment of Web information quality. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo-Rouet, M., Salmerón, L., Ros, C., Pérez, A., Stadtler, M., & Rouet, J. F. (2020). Are frequent users of social network sites good information evaluators? An investigation of adolescents’ sourcing abilities. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 43(1), 101–138.Google Scholar
Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2010). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137–151.Google Scholar
Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Zaccoletti, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Webpage reading: Psychophysiological correlates of emotional arousal and regulation predict multiple-text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 317–326.Google Scholar
McGrew, S. (2020). Learning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning. Computers & Education, 145, 103711.Google Scholar
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492.Google Scholar
Paul, J., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Stadtler, M. (2017). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education, 113, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, A., Potocki, A., Stadtler, M., Macedo-Rouet, M., Paul, J., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2018). Fostering teenagers’ assessment of information reliability: Effects of a classroom intervention focused on critical source dimensions. Learning and Instruction, 58, 53–64.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based Learning and Reasoning: Studies in History. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In van Oostendorp, H. & Goldman, S. (eds.), The Construction of Mental Representations during Reading (pp. 99–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Potocki, A., de Pereyra, G., Ros, C., Macedo-Rouet, M., Stadtler, M., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2020). The development of source evaluation skills during adolescence: Exploring different levels of source processing and their relationships. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 43(1), 19–59.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-Based Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Potocki, A. (2019). Multiple text comprehension. In Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (pp. 356–380). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Le Bigot, L., de Pereyra, G., & Britt, M. A. (2016). Whose story is this? Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in short narratives. Reading and Writing, 29, 1549–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, A., & Dinet, J. (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on grade school students’ assessment of relevance in web menus. Learning and Instruction, 21, 205–219.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Saux, G., Ros, C., Stadtler, M., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2020). Inside document models: The role of source attributes in integrating multiple text contents. Discourse Processes, 58(1), 60–79.Google Scholar
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, K., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In Thomson, J., Barzillai, M., Schroeder, S., & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Learning to Read in a Digital World (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Saux, G., Ros, C., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., Burin, D., & Rouet, J.-F. (2018). Readers’ selective recall of source features as a function of claim discrepancy and task demands. Discourse Processes, 55(5–6), 525–544.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130–150.Google Scholar
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2002). Norwegian students’ use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208–227.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 192–204.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 1060–1106.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Steffens, B., & Britt, M. A. (2020). Epistemic beliefs about the value of integrating information across multiple documents in history. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1997). The effects of “playing historian” on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63–72.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. in Leinhardt, G., Beck, I., & Stainton, C. (eds.), Teaching and Learning in History (pp. 85-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zarocostas, J. (2020). How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet, 395(10225), 676.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×