Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How do students integrate multiple texts? An investigation of top-down processing

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study describes an in-depth investigation of students’ integration or connection formation across multiple texts. Students were asked to complete two multiple text tasks, differing in the number of texts that they asked students to connect and the variety of cross-textual connections able to be formed. For each task, students were asked to indicate (e.g., highlight) and explain each connection formed. Students’ connection formation was analyzed in a variety of ways (e.g., number of texts connected, types of connections identified). Across two tasks, students were found (a) to form more evidentiary (i.e., linking specific information supporting main ideas) than thematic (i.e., linking main ideas across texts) connections, (b) to identify more similarities than differences, and (c) to form comparatively low-level, rather than high-level connections, with levels of connection formation distinguished according to the degree of specificity, abstraction, and elaboration that these reflected. Implications for further research and instruction are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2012). 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.

  • Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI20042.

    Article  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 S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, H., & List, A. (2020). Researching and writing based on multiple texts. Learning and Instruction, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297

  • Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–352). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., 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(4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, C., Coiro, J., & Hämäläinen, J. (2016). An online inquiry tool to support the exploration of controversial issues on the Internet. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 17, 31–52 Retrieved from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/uploads/1/3/6/8/136889/jltsp2016killicoirohamaianen.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26(4-5), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710500285870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankshear, C. (1999). Literacy studies in education: Disciplined developments in a post-disciplinary age. In M. Peters (Ed.), After the disciplines: The emergence of cultural studies (pp. 199–228). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

  • List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003.

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514.

  • List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003.

  • List, A. (2019). Drawing is Integrating: An Examination of Students’ Graphic Representations of Multiple Texts. Reading Psychology, 40(6), 491-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2019.1629517

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. K. (2018). Cold and warm perspectives on the Cognitive Affective Engagement Model of multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 34–54). New York: Routledge.

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014.

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309

  • McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51(1-2), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students’ strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI210201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301.

    Article  Google 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(4), 1060–1106. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci23042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Alexandra List, Hongcui Du & Hye Yeon Lee

Authors
  1. Alexandra List
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongcui Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hye Yeon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra List.

Additional information

Alexandra List focuses on students’ learning from multiple texts, such as when student aim to learn about complex topics on the Internet. In particular, her work focuses on students’ higher order processing, including multiple text evaluation and integration.

Hongcui Du is interested in how students understand evidence presented across multiple texts and communicate this understanding through writing.

Hye Yeon Lee is interested in the role of self-regulation in students’ learning from multiple texts. In particular, she is interested in how students select and evaluate texts’ trustworthiness, usefulness, and comprehensibility during reading.

Select Publications:

List, A. (2019). Drawing is integrating: an examination of students’ graphic representations of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 40(6), 491–524.

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39.

List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

List, A., Du, H. & Lee, H.Y. How do students integrate multiple texts? An investigation of top-down processing. Eur J Psychol Educ 36, 599–626 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00497-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00497-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation