This study explored relationships between Internet-specific justification beliefs and source evaluation and corroboration during Web search. Fifty university students completed the Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory (ISEJ), which targeted beliefs concerning the justification of Internet-based knowledge claims about natural science issues. Two to five days later, they conducted a Web search in order to communicate a justified position regarding an unsettled and unfamiliar socio-scientific issue. Using think-aloud and trace methodologies, participants’ source evaluation and corroboration behaviors were examined. Furthermore, the extent and relevance of their post-search written justifications for their recommendation about the controversial issue were analyzed. Results showed that beliefs in justification by authority positively predicted comments regarding source evaluation, the percentage of visited websites that were listed beyond the first three Google search results, and the likelihood of opening multiple browser tabs. Beliefs in personal justification negatively predicted comments regarding corroboration of information across websites and the number of relevant aspects included in the written justifications. Finally, participants with stronger beliefs in justification by multiple sources gave more extensive justifications for their recommendation and included more relevant aspects in those justifications.
BarzilaiS.TzadokE.Eshet-AlkalaiY. (2015).
Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science,
43(6), 737–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4
2.
BraaschJ. L. G.BråtenI. (2017).
The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist,
52(3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219
3.
Brand-GruwelS.KammererY.van MeeuwenL.van GogT. (2017).
Source evaluation of domain experts and novices during Web search. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
33(3), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12162
4.
Brand-GruwelS.WopereisI.WalravenA. (2009).
A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education,
53(4), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004
5.
BranteE. W.StrømsøH. I. (2018).
Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review,
30, 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7
6.
BråtenI. (2011). Personal epistemology in education. In AukrustV. G. (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 52–58).
Elsevier.
7.
BråtenI.AnmarkrudØ.BrandmoC.StrømsøH. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002
8.
BråtenI.BrandmoC.KammererY. (2019).
A validation study of the Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory with Norwegian pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
57(4), 877–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118769438
9.
BråtenI.BranteE. W.StrømsøH. I. (2018).
What really matters: The role of behavioral engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading,
41(4), 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12247
10.
BråtenI.BranteE. W.StrømsøH. I. (2019).
Teaching sourcing in upper secondary school: A comprehensive sourcing intervention with follow-up data. Reading Research Quarterly,
54(4), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.253.
11.
BråtenI.BrittM. A.StrømsøH. I.RouetJ.-F. (2011).
The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist,
46(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
12.
BråtenI.FergusonL. E. (2014).
Investigating cognitive capacity, personality, and epistemic beliefs in relation to science achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,
36, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.003
13.
BråtenI.FergusonL. E.StrømsøH. I.AnmarkrudØ. (2013).
Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
28(3), 879–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2
14.
BråtenI.FergusonL. E.StrømsøH. I.AnmarkrudØ. (2014).
Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays.British Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(1), 58–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
15.
BråtenI.GilL.StrømsøH. I.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2009).
Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students’ epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education,
12, 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9097-z
16.
BråtenI.McCruddenM. T.Stang LundE.BranteE. W.StrømsøH. 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,
53(3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.197
17.
BråtenI.StadtlerM.SalmerónL. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In SchoberM. F.RappD. N.BrittM. A. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 141–166).
Routledge.
18.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I. (2010).
Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes,
47(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959646
19.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I. (2020). On the roles of dispositions and beliefs in learning from multiple perspectives. In Van MeterP.ListA.LombardiD.KendeouP. (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives (pp. 141–163).
Routledge.
20.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.FergusonL. E. (2016). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of single and multiple texts. In AfflerbachP. (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Text and context (pp. 67–79).
Routledge.
21.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.SamuelstuenM. S. (2005).
The relationship between Internet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within Internet technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
33(2), 141–171. https://doi.org/10.2190/E763-X0LN-6NMF-CB86
22.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.SamuelstuenM. S. (2008).
Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33(4), 814–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.001
BrommeR.KienhuesD.PorschT. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In BendixenL. D.FeuchtF. C. (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163–193).
Cambridge University Press.
25.
BrossardD. (2013).
New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
110(3), 14096–14101. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212744110
26.
ChengC.-H.BråtenI.YangF.-Y.BrandmoC. (2020). Investigating structural relationships among upper-secondary students’ beliefs about knowledge, justification for knowing, and Internet-specific justification in the domain of science. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan/University of Oslo, Norway. [Manuscript submitted for publication].
27.
ChiM. T.BassokM.LewisM. W.ReimannP.GlaserR. (1989).
Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science,
13(2), 145–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5
28.
ChiuY.-L.LiangJ.-C.TsaiC.-C. (2013).
Internet-specific beliefs and self-regulated learning in online academic information searching.Metacognition and Learning,
8(3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9103-x
29.
De La PazS.Monte-SanoC.FeltonM.CroningerR.JacksonC.Worland PiantedosiK. (2017).
A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly,
52(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.147
30.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data(Rev. ed.).The MIT Press.
31.
FergusonL. E.BråtenI. (2013).
Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension.Learning and Instruction,
25, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003
32.
FergusonL. E.BråtenI.StrømsøH. I. (2012).
Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction,
22(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
33.
FergusonL. E.BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.AnmarkrudØ. (2013).
Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research,
62(6), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001
34.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2007).
The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society,
9(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015
35.
GilL.BråtenI.Vidal-AbarcaE.StrømsøH. I. (2010).
Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom?Contemporary Educational Psychology,
35(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002
36.
GottschlingS.KammererY.GerjetsP. (2019).
Readers’ processing of source information as a function of its usefulness to explain conflicting scientific claims. Discourse Processes,
56(5–6), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1610305
37.
GreeneJ. A.AzevedoR.Torney-PurtaJ. (2008).
Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist,
43(3), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178458
38.
GreeneJ. A.CopelandD. Z.DeekensV. M.YuS. B. (2018).
Beyond knowledge: Examining digital literacy’s role in the acquisition of understanding in science. Computers & Education,
117, 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.003
39.
GreeneJ. A.Torney-PurtaJ.AzevedoR. (2010).
Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(1), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017998
40.
GreeneJ. A.YuS. B.CopelandD. Z. (2014).
Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education,
76, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.008
41.
GuoL.CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (2013).
Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing,
18(3), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002
42.
HoferB. K.BendixenL. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 227–256).
American Psychological Association.
43.
HoferB. K.PintrichP. R. (1997).
The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research,
67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
44.
KammererY.AmannD. G.GerjetsP. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention.Computers in Human Behavior,
48, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.045
45.
KammererY.Brand-GruwelS. (2020). Trainings and tools to foster source credibility evaluation during Web search. In FuW.-T.van OostendorpH. (Eds.), Understanding and improving information search (pp. 213–243).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38825-6_11
46.
KammererY.BråtenI.GerjetsP.StrømsøH. I. (2013).
The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons' source evaluations and decisions during web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.012
47.
KammererY.GerjetsP. (2014).
The role of search result position and source trustworthiness in the selection of web search results when using a list or a grid interface. International Journal of Human-Computer-Interaction,
30(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.846790
48.
KiiliC.LeuD. J.UtriainenJ.CoiroJ.KanniainenL.TolvanenA.LohvansuuK.LeppänenP. H. (2018).
Reading to learn from online information: Modeling the factor structure. Journal of Literacy Research,
50(3), 304–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18784640
49.
KimJ.ThomasP.SankaranarayanaR.GedeonT.YoonH.-J. (2015).
Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior and performance in web search on large and small screens. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
66(3), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23187
50.
KnightS.RientiesB.LittletonK.MitsuiM.TempelaarD. (2017).
The relationship of (perceived) epistemic cognition to interaction with resources on the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior,
73, 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.014
51.
LatiniN.BråtenI.AnmarkrudØ.SalmerónL. (2019).
Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple document context. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
59, Article 101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797
52.
LeeW.-C.ChiuY.-L.LiangJ.-C.TsaiC.-C. (2014).
Exploring the structural relationships between high school students’ Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and their utilization of online academic help seeking. Computers in Human Behavior,
36, 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.069
53.
LewandowskiD. (2011). The influence of commercial intent of search results on their perceived relevance. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (pp. 452–458). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1940761.1940823
54.
LinS. F.LinH. S.WuY. Y. (2013).
Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
22(4), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9413-9
55.
ListA.AlexanderP. A. (2018).
Corroborating students’ self-reports of source evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology,
37(3), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1430849
56.
LorigoL.HaridasanM.BrynjarsdóttirH.XiaL.JoachimsT.GayG.GrankaL.PellaciniF.PanB. (2008).
Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
59(7), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20794
57.
MasonL.AriasiN.BoldrinA. (2011).
Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning.Learning and Instruction,
21(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001
58.
MasonL.BoldrinA.AriasiN. (2010a).
Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information.Metacognition and Learning,
5, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2
59.
MasonL.BoldrinA.AriasiN. (2010b).
Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active?Instructional Science,
38(6), 607–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9089-y
MonchauxS.AmadieuF.ChevalierA.MarinéC. (2015).
Query strategies during information searching: Effects of prior domain knowledge and complexity of the information problems to be solved.Information Processing & Management,
51(5), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.05.004
62.
MuisK. R.BendixenL. D.HaerleF. C. (2006).
Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review,
18(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6
RouetJ.-F.FavartM.BrittM. A.PerfettiC. A. (1997).
Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction,
15(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_3
65.
SanchizM.ChinJ.ChevalierA.FuW.-T.AmadieuF.HeJ. (2017).
Searching for information on the web: Impact of cognitive aging, prior domain knowledge and complexity of the search problems.Information Processing & Management,
53(1), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.09.003
66.
SandovalW. A.GreeneJ. A.BråtenI. (2016).
Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge: Origin, issues, and future directions of research on epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education,
40(1), 457–496. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16669319
67.
ScharrerL.BrommeR.BrittM. A.StadtlerM. (2012).
The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction,
22(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004
68.
SchneiderW.SchlagmüllerM.EnnemoserM. (2007). LGVT 6-12: Lesegeschwindigkeits- und -verständnistest [LGVT 6-12: A test for the assessment of reading speed and comprehension for high school students]. Hogrefe.
69.
ShahC.HendahewaC.González‐IbáñezR. (2016).
Rain or shine? Forecasting search process performance in exploratory search tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
67(7), 1607–1623. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23484
70.
StadtlerM.BrommeR. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In RappD. N.BraaschJ. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402).
MIT Press.
71.
StrømsøH .I.BråtenI. (2010).
The role of personal epistemology in self-regulation of Internet-based learning.Metacognition and Learning,
5(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9043-7
72.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI. (2014).
Students’ sourcing while reading and writing from multiple documents. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy,
9(2), 92–111.
73.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI.AnmarkrudØ.FergusonL. E. (2016).
Beliefs about justification for knowing when ethnic-majority and ethnic-minority students read multiple conflicting documents. Educational Psychology,
36(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920080
74.
StrømsøH. I.KammererY. (2016). Epistemic cognition and reading for understanding in the Internet age. In GreeneJ. A.SandovalW. A.BråtenI. (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 230–246).
Routledge.
75.
SuL. Y. F.AkinH.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2015).
Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
92(3), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015586415
76.
UlyshenT. Z.KoehlerM. J.GaoF. (2015).
Understanding the connection between epistemic beliefs and Internet searching. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
53(3), 345–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115599604
77.
Van DeursenA. J. (2012).
Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health information.International Journal of Medical Informatics,
81(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.005
78.
von der MühlenS.RichterT.SchmidS.SchmidtE. M.BertholdK. (2016).
The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: A student-scientist comparison. Reading and Writing,
29(8), 1677–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0
79.
WhiteR. W.DumaisS. T.TeevanJ. (2009). Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on Web search behavior. In Baeza-YatesR.BoldiP.Ribeiro-NetoB.CambazogluB. B. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Second ACM international Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ‘09) (pp. 132–142).
ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498819
80.
WileyJ.GoldmanS.GraesserA.SanchezC.AshI.HemmerichJ. (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
81.
WineburgS. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
82.
WineburgS.McGrewS. (2019).
Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record,
121, 1–40.
83.
ZhangX.LiuJ.ColeM.BelkinN. (2015).
Predicting users' domain knowledge in information retrieval using multiple regression analysis of search behaviors. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
66(5), 980–1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23218
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
