Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

KReC-MD: Knowledge Revision with Multiple Documents

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 30 October 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

The aim of this paper is two-fold. The first aim is to review the core representational and processing aspects of influential accounts of single-document and multiple-document comprehension with a particular emphasis on how readers negotiate conflicting information during reading. This review provides the groundwork for the second aim—to expand our current account of knowledge revision during reading of single documents to multiple documents. The product of this expansion is an initial conceptualization of the Knowledge Revision Components Framework–Multiple Documents (KReC-MD). This initial conceptualization presents the theoretical foundation necessary for future empirical work and further refinement.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L., Rouet, J. F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L., McCabe, R. M., & Daniel, F. (2016). Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Reading and Writing, 29(8), 1571–1598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I. (2010). Personal epistemology in education: Concepts, issues, and implications. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 5, pp. 211–217). Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (2006). Constructing meaning from multiple information sources as a function of personal epistemology. Information Design Journal, 14(1), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L., Strømsø, H. I., & Ferguson, L. E. (2015). Establishing trustworthiness when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence. Reading Psychology, 36(4), 315–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Andreassen, R. (2016). Sourcing in professional education: Do text factors make any difference? Reading and Writing, 29(8), 1599–1628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 141–166). Routledge.

  • Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. (2020). Multiple document comprehension. In Zhang & L. Fang (Eds.), The oxford encyclopedia of educational psychology. Oxford University Press.

  • 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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018a). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018b). Representations and processes in multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), The handbook of multiple source use (pp. 17–33). Routledge.

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Blaum, D., & Millis, K. K. (2019). A reasoned approach to dealing with fake news. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 801–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Reducing interference from misconceptions: The role of inhibition in knowledge revision. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 782–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, B. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2015). Reading on the Internet: Realizing and constructing potential texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 504–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J., Ecker, U., & Lewandowsky, S. (2015). Misinformation and how to correct it. Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1–17.

  • Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 37825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60.

  • Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91(1), 1–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakala, C. M., & O'Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading. Discourse Processes, 20(2), 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93(4), 411–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) Framework: Processes and Mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). MIT Press.

  • Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Theories of text processing: A view from the top-down. In M. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 7–21). Routledge Publishing.

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Interactions between prior knowledge and text structure during comprehension of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors on reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(4), 365–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Walsh, E., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge Revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51(5-6), 374–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Van Boekel, M., & O’Brien, E. J. (2017). Integrating relational reasoning and knowledge revision during reading. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 27–39.

  • Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J., & Van Boekel, M. (2019a). Knowledge revision through the lenses of the three-pronged approach. Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Robinson, D. H., & McCrudden, M. (2019b). Misinformation and fake news in education. Information Age Publishing, Inc..

  • Kendeou, P., Harsch, R., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J., & Aubele, J. D. (2020). The challenge of fake news and the development of critical thinking in digital environments. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, & P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of multiple representations and perspectives. Routledge.

  • Kim, J., Butterfuss, R., Aubele, J. D., & Kendeou, P. (2019). From theory to practice: Implications of KReC for designing effective learning environments. In P. Kendeou, M. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Misinformation and fake news in education (pp. 229–258). Information Age Publishing, Inc..

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.

  • Kobayashi, K. (2014). Students’ consideration of source information during the reading of multiple texts and its effect on intertextual conflict resolution. Instructional Science, 42(2), 183–205.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 182–199.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist., 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379.

  • McNamara, D. S. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account. In Proceedings of Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 508–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–384). Academic Press.

  • McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 465–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2-3), 131–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • 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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2014). Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. MIT Press.

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95(3), 385–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52(5-6), 337–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014038.

    Article  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.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 19–52). Information Age.

  • Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saux, G., Britt, A., Le Bigot, L., Vibert, N., Burin, D., & Rouet, J. F. (2017). Conflicting but close: Readers’ integration of information sources as a function of their disagreement. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 151–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelby, A., & Ernst, K. (2013). Story and science: how providers and parents can utilize storytelling to combat anti-vaccine misinformation. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1795–1801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition, 124(2), 209–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 230–247.

    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. 379–340). MIT Press.

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.

  • Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Multiple models of multiple-text comprehension: a commentary. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 216–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 513–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevors, G., & Kendeou, P. (2020). The effects of positive and negative emotional text Content on knowledge revision. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1326–1339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevors, G. J., Kendeou, P., & Butterfuss, R. (2017). Emotion processes in knowledge revision. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 406–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K., O’Brien, E. J., & Kendeou, P. (2017). Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 168–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 335–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., List, A., Lombardi, D., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Handbook of multiple representations. Routledge.

  • Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe Report, DGI, 2017, 9.

    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.

    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(1), 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is supported in part by grants R324A160064 and R305A170242 from the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Minnesota; grants R305A180144, R305A190050, R305A190063, and R305A180261, from the U.S. Department of Education to Arizona State University; and grant N00014-19-1-2424 from the U.S. Office of Naval Research to Arizona State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Reese Butterfuss

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Reese Butterfuss & Panayiota Kendeou

Authors
  1. Reese Butterfuss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Panayiota Kendeou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reese Butterfuss.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised: In the right panel of Figure 1, the gray circles representing source credibility of the low-credibility example sources were mislabeled as “high” credibility.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Butterfuss, R., Kendeou, P. KReC-MD: Knowledge Revision with Multiple Documents. Educ Psychol Rev 33, 1475–1497 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation