Citing as a sourcing practice: students’ citing self-selected online sources in their essays (Las citas como práctica del uso de las fuentes: las citas de fuentes en línea seleccionados por los estudiantes en sus trabajos)

Abstract

Spanish

This study examined upper secondary school students’ citations of self-selected online sources in their essays. Students (n = 140) conducted online inquiry about either effects of social media on people’s quality of life (SM) or allowance of genetic manipulation of organisms (GMO). Students, working either individually or in pairs, explored online sources with the help of a graphic organizer, after which they composed their essays. To capture the quality of citations identified in the essays, they were evaluated in terms of accuracy and richness of source features. Further, regression analysis was used to examine the effect of topic, grade level and work mode on the number and quality of citations. Results showed that students seldom cited sources in their essays, and when they did, citations were mostly accurate but less often rich in source features. When writing about SM, students most frequently cited media sources, while sources with ideological, political or religious motives were frequently cited in GMO essays. Students’ grades and work modes predicted the number of citations and number of accurate citations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barzilai

Strømsø

H. I.

(2018). Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. In Braasch

J. L. G.

Bråten

McCrudden

M. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99–116). New York, NY: Routledge.

Barzilai

Zohar

A. R.

Mor-Hagani

(2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 973–999.

Brand-Gruwel

Wopereis

Vermetten

(2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487–508.

Brante

E. W.

Strømsø

H. I.

(2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 773–799.

Bråten

Anmarkrud

Ø.

Brandmo

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.

Bråten

Brante

E. W.

Strømsø

H. I.

(2019). Teaching sourcing in upper secondary school: A comprehensive sourcing intervention with follow-up data. Reading Research Quarterly, 54, 481–505.

Bråten

McCrudden

Stang Lund

Brante

E. W.

Strømsø

H. I.

(2018). Task-oriented learning with multiple documents: Effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on document selection, processing, and use. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 345–365.

Bråten

Stadtler

Salmerón

(2018). The role of sourcing in discourse. In Schober

M. F.

Rapp

D. N.

Britt

M. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 141–166). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bråten

Strømsø

H. I.

Andreassen

(2016). Sourcing in professional education: Do text factors make any difference? Reading and Writing, 29, 1599–1628.

10.

Britt

M. A.

Rouet

J. F.

(2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In Lawson

M. J.

Kirby

J. R.

(Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Britt

M. A.

Rouet

J. F.

Braasch

J. L. G.

(2013). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In Britt

M. A.

Goldman

S. R.

Rouet

J. F.

(Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Britt

M. A.

Wiemer-Hastings

Larson

A. A.

Perfetti

C. A.

(2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students’ essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 359–374.

13.

Castek

Manderino

(2017). A planning framework for integrating digital literacies for disciplinary learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 697–700.

14.

Chen

Wang

Kirschner

P. A.

Tsai

C. C.

(2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88, 799–843.

15.

Cho

B. Y.

Woodward

Barlow

(2017). Examining adolescents’ strategic processing during online reading with a question-generating task. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 691–724.

16.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

17.

Coiro

(2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory into Practice, 50, 107–115.

18.

Coiro

Coscarelli

Maykel

Forzani

(2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 287–297.

19.

Coiro

Dobler

(2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.

20.

Coiro

Sparks

Kiili

Castek

(2018). NAEP SAIL virtual world for assessing collaborative online inquiry and social deliberation . Paper presented at annual meeting of American Education Research Association (AERA), New York, NY.

21.

Coxe

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2009). The analysis of count data: A gentle introduction to poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 121–136.

22.

Dillenbourg

(1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In Dillenbourg

(Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

23.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

24.

Harrison

(2018). Critical internet literacy: What is it, and how should we teach it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61, 461–464.

25.

Kiili

Coiro

Hämäläinen

(2016). An online inquiry tool to support the exploration of controversial issues on the internet. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 17(1–2), 31–52.

26.

Kiili

Coiro

Räikkönen

(2019). Students’ evaluation of online texts during online inquiry: Working individually or in pairs. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 42, 167–183.

27.

Kiili

Laurinen

Marttunen

(2008). Students evaluating internet sources – From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39, 75–95.

28.

Kirkpatrick

L. C.

Klein

P. D.

(2016). High-achieving high school students’ strategies for writing from internet-based sources of information. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 1–47.

29.

Knight-Davis

Sung

J. S.

(2008). Analysis of citations in undergraduate papers. College & Research Libraries, 69, 447–458.

30.

Leu

D. J.

Kinzer

C. K.

Coiro

Castek

Henry

L. A.

(2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In Alvermann

D. E.

Unrau

N. J.

Ruddell

R. B.

(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

31.

Lou

Abrami

P. C.

d’Apollonia

(2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.

32.

Macedo-Rouet

Potocki

Scharrer

Ros

Stadtler

Salmerón

Rouet

J. F.

(2019). How good is this page? Benefits and limits of prompting on adolescents’ evaluation of web information quality. Reading Research Quarterly, 54, 299–321.

33.

Mason

Scrimin

Tornatora

M. C.

Suitner

Moè

(2018). Internet source evaluation: The role of implicit associations and psychophysiological self-regulation. Computers & Education, 119, 59–75.

34.

McCrudden

M. T.

Stenseth

Bråten

Strømsø

H. I.

(2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 147–162.

35.

Muthén

(1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

36.

OECD . (2014). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/Education-at-a-Glance-2014.pdf

37.

Ostenson

(2013). Reconsidering the checklist in teaching internet source evaluation. portal. Libraries and the Academy, 14, 33–50.

38.

Ozuru

Dempsey

McNamara

D. S.

(2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.

39.

Paul

Macedo-Rouet

Rouet

J. F.

Stadtler

(2017). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education, 113, 339–354.

40.

Paul

Stadtler

Bromme

(2019). Effects of a sourcing prompt and conflicts in reading materials on elementary students’ use of source information. Discourse Processes, 56, 155–169.

41.

Pérez

Potocki

Stadtler

Macedo-Rouet

Paul

Salmerón

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.

42.

Perfetti

C. A.

Rouet

J.-F.

Britt

M. A.

(1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In Oostendorp

H. V.

Goldman

S. R.

(Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 88–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

43.

Rouet

J. F.

Britt

M. A.

Durik

A. M.

(2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52, 200–215.

44.

Rouet

J. F.

Skov

De Pereyra

Ros

Le Bigot

Vibert

(2018). Relevance versus big numbers: Students’ criteria for selecting scholarly references online. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24, 476–489.

45.

Schiefele

Schaffner

Möller

Wigfield

(2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427–463.

46.

Stadtler

Bromme

(2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met. a. ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737.

47.

Strømsø

H. I.

Bråten

(2014). Students’ sourcing while reading and writing from multiple web documents. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9, 92–111.

48.

Walraven

Brand-Gruwel

Boshuizen

H. P. A.

(2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behaviour while searching the internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125–146.

49.

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.