Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-09
From reading comprehension to document literacy: learning to search for,evaluate and integrate information across texts / De la lectura a la alfabetización documental: aprender a buscar,evaluar e integrar información de diversos textos
This paper discusses the skills required for students to be able to access, comprehend and use documents independently, both in print and online. We start with a simple example in order to illustrate the demands posed by document-based school tasks on students’ reading literacy skills. We then propose a descriptive framework to broaden the construct of reading literacy so as to account for document processes, including search, evaluation and multiple-text integration. We review some studies illustrating the challenges of these processes for primary school students, and we discuss extant research investigating the effectiveness of instructional interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.GoodenR.BentumK. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
2.
BranteE. W.StrømsøH. I. (2017). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 1–27.
3.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.BrittM. 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.
4.
BremS. K.RussellJ.WeemsL. (2001). Science on the web: Students’ evaluation of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213.
5.
BrittM. A.AglinskasC. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.
6.
BrittM. A.PerfettiC. A.SandakR.RouetJ. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.van den BroekP. (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
BrittM. A.RouetJ.-F.DurikA. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
CataldoM.OakhillJ. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799.
9.
CauchardF.EyrolleH.CellierJ. M.HyönäJ. (2010). Visual signals vertically extend the perceptual span in searching a text: A gaze-contingent window study. Discourse Processes, 47, 617–640.
10.
CerdánR.GilabertR.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2011). Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 201–205.
11.
CouteletB.RouetJ. F. (2004). Apprendre à chercher dans un texte: Effets d’un entraînement à 8 et 10 ans [Learning to search within a text: Effects of a training intervention at 8 and 10 years of age]. Enfance, 56, 357–386.
12.
EastinM. S.YangM.NathansonA. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 211–230.
13.
GernsbacherM. A.FaustM. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245–262.
14.
GernsbacherM. A.VarnerK. R.FaustM. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.
15.
GoldmanS. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In Shuart-FerrisN.BloomeD. M. (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313–347). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
16.
GoldmanS. R.RakestrawJ. A.Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume III (pp. 311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
18.
HagenÅ. M.BraaschJ. L.BråtenI. (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(S1), 141–157.
19.
HahnelC.GoldhammerF.NaumannJ.KröhneU. (2016). Effects of linear reading, basic computer skills, evaluating online information, and navigation on reading digital text. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 486–500.
20.
KiefferM. J.VukovicR. K.BerryD. (2013). Roles of attention shifting and inhibitory control in fourth-grade reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 333–348.
21.
KingsleyT. L.CassadyJ. C.TancockS. M. (2015). Successfully promoting 21st century online research skills: Interventions in 5th-grade classrooms. Reading Horizons, 54, 92–134.
22.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
23.
LocascioG.MahoneE. M.EasonS. H.CuttingL. E. (2010). Executive dysfunction among children with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 441–454.
24.
Macedo-RouetM.BraaschJ. L.BrittM. A.RouetJ.-F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 204–226.
25.
McCruddenM. T.SchrawG. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139.
26.
MeyerB. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In BrittonB. K.BlackJ. B. (Eds), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
OakhillJ.CainK. (2017). Children with specific text comprehension problems. In CainK.ComptonD. L.ParrilaR. K. (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 359–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
PerfettiC. A.RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In van OostendorpH.GoldmanS. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
PotockiA.RosC.VibertN.RouetJ. F. (2017). Children’s visual scanning of textual documents: Effects of document organization, search goals, and metatextual knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 480–497.
30.
PotockiA.SanchezM.EcalleJ.MagnanA. (2015). Linguistic and cognitive profiles of 8-to 15-year-old children with specific reading comprehension difficulties: The role of executive functions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 128–142.
31.
RichterT.SchroederS.WöhrmannB. (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, 538–558.
32.
RiehS. Y. (2002). Judgements of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145–161.
33.
RiehS. Y.HilligossB. (2008). College students’ credibility judgments in the information-seeking process. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 49–72). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.049
34.
RouetJ.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ. P.SchrawG. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
36.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A.MasonR. A.PerfettiC. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.
37.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A.PotockiA. (press). Multiple text comprehension. In DunloskyJ.RawsonK. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of cognition and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
RouetJ. F.CouteletB. (2008). The acquisition of document search strategies in grade school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389–406.
39.
RouetJ.-F.EmeE. (2002). The role of metatextual knowledge in text comprehension: Issues in development and individual differences. In ChambresP.IzauteM.MarescauxP. J. (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 121–134). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
40.
RouetJ.-F.FavartM.BrittM. A.PerfettiC. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.
41.
RouetJ. F.Le BigotL.De PereyraG.BrittM. A. (2016). Whose story is this? Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in short narratives. Reading and Writing, 29, 1549–1570.
42.
SesmaH. W.MahoneE. M.LevineT.EasonS. H.CuttingL. E. (2009). The contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 232–246.
SingerM. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361–366.
45.
StadtlerM.BrommeR. (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.
46.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI. (2002). Norwegian students’ use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208–227.
47.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI.BrittM. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 192–204.
48.
van den BroekP.Bohn-GettlerC. M.KendeouP.CarlsonS. (2011). When a reader meets a text. The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ.SchrawG. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–139). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
49.
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50.
WhiteS.ChenJ.ForsythB. (2010). Reading-related literacy activities of American adults: Time spent, task types, and cognitive skills used. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 276–307.
51.
WileyJ.GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.SanchezC. A.AshI. K.HemmerichJ. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.
52.
WilsonP. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
53.
WineburgS. 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.
54.
WineburgS. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In LeinhardtG.BeckI.StaintonC. (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
ZhangS.DukeN. K. (2011). The impact of instruction in the WWWDOT framework on students’ disposition and ability to evaluate web sites as sources of information. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 132–154.
