1

Reading Multiple and Non-Traditional Texts:

New Opportunities and New Challenges

Ivar Bråten

University of Oslo, Norway

Jason L. G. Braasch

University of Memphis, USA

Ladislao Salmerón

University of Valencia, Spain

To appear in: E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of

Reading Research (Vol. V). New York: Routledge.

 2

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to review theory and research on the reading of multiple

and non-traditional texts, discuss implications for educational research and practice, and

suggest directions for future theoretical and empirical work. Reading multiple texts involves

trying to construct meaning from multiple textual resources that present consistent,

componential (i.e., information across different texts is part of a larger whole not specified in

any single text), or conflicting information on the same situation, issue, or phenomenon

(Bråten, Anmarkrud, Brandmo, & Strømsø, 2014; Goldman, 2004). Such textual resources

may be digital as well as printed. Compared to printed texts, digital texts afford new

opportunities in terms of accessibility, coverage, and topicality, yet pose new challenges due

to relaxed parameters for publishing and the consequential need to differentiate useful and

reliable texts from those that are not (Britt & Gabrys, 2000; Leu & Maykel, 2016; Lucassen,

Muilwijk, Noordzij, & Schraagen, 2013). Still, well into the 21st century, digital texts cannot

be considered non-traditional in and of themselves. Accordingly, we will reserve the term

non-traditional texts for digital texts embedded in social activity. More specifically, the

reading of non-traditional texts is taken to involve forms of social interaction in digital

contexts that have traditionally required face-to-face encounters, such as the reading of instant

messages, web forums, blogs, and online comments (Bråten, Stadtler, & Salmerón, in press).

Also, when reading such non-traditional texts, individuals typically engage with multiple texts

dealing with the same situation, issue, or phenomenon, for example when reading several

answers to a question posted on a web forum or reading a number of online comments to a

particular newspaper article.

Our treatment of the reading of multiple and non-traditional texts thus spans reading

contexts ranging from the reading of multiple traditional texts in print, as when a high school

class reads documents distributed by their teacher to complete a history assignment, to the
 3

reading of multiple non-traditional texts online, as when a couple reads conflicting

evaluations of the same hotel on a travel forum website to decide on accommodations for their

upcoming weekend trip. In a middle position, as it were, is the reading of multiple traditional

texts online, as when an undergraduate student reads a set of published articles retrieved via

the university library’s website on his laptop to prepare a class presentation on a particular

course-related issue. Of course, all these reading contexts are ubiquitous in the 21st century

information society (Bråten & Braasch, in press; Goldman et al., 2011). It is therefore

somewhat paradoxical that much, if not most, of what researchers know about reading is

based on individuals reading a single text (cf., McNamara & Magliano, 2009). Given this

state of affairs, it can be argued that increased attention to reading contexts involving multiple

and non-traditional texts is required to improve the ecological validity of the work that we, as

a field, produce. Accordingly, our discussion of emergent conceptualizations and empirical

findings regarding the reading of multiple and non-traditional texts in this chapter highlights

the need to better align the world of reading research with the world of real life reading, both

in and out of school.

The remainder of this chapter is divided into three main sections. In the first, we

provide a theoretical background by discussing relevant frameworks for understanding how

the reading of multiple and non-traditional texts is similar to and differs from the reading of

single and traditional texts. In the second, we review empirical work on the role of individual

and contextual factors in multiple text comprehension, the similarities and differences

between reading printed and digital texts, and the reading of non-traditional texts in digital

contexts. Finally, in the third main section, we summarize the outcome of our conceptual and

empirical analysis, discuss implications for conceptualization of the reading process and

instructional practice, and note future work that is needed in this area of research.

Theoretical Background
 4

The past 15 years has seen an increased interest in theory development for the

purposes of better understanding the affordances and challenges of reading to understand

multiple and non-traditional texts. In this section, we present and discuss several prominent

frameworks that have resulted from these efforts. They include the Documents Model

Framework (DMF), the Multiple-Document Task-based Relevance Assessment and Content

Extraction (MD-TRACE) model, the Disciplinary Literacy conceptual framework, the

Semantics, Surface, and Source (3S) model of credibility evaluation, and the New Literacies

framework.

The Documents Model Framework

The DMF is arguably the most influential framework for describing how readers

mentally represent multiple, at times conflicting, messages in terms of the information sources

conveying them (Britt, Perfetti, Sandak, & Rouet, 1999; Britt & Rouet, 2012; Britt, Rouet, &

Braasch, 2013; Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999; Rouet, 2006). The framework specifies that

readers of multiple texts will ideally create two additional mental structures above and beyond

those described in models of single text comprehension (e.g., Kintsch, 1998; van den Broek,

2010). First, to optimize their understandings of the situation or phenomenon described by

texts, readers should construct an integrated mental model, which is a mental representation

of the global situation described in multiple texts as relationships among the semantic content

(Britt & Rouet, 2012). An integrated mental model could entail ideas unique to single texts,

ideas shared across multiple texts, and ideas offered by multiple texts that contradict one

another. The DMF additionally proposes that readers should construct an intertext model,

which is a mental representation that uses source features (e.g., authors, publication venues,

perspectives, and so forth) as organizational components (Britt & Rouet, 2012). Intertext links

are mentally represented as relationships between information sources – referred to as

document nodes – and their respective content assertions (e.g., “Author A claims...”, “Author
 5

B claims...”). Intertext links also function as connections between the document nodes

themselves (e.g., “Author A disagrees with Author B”). In this way, the DMF describes how

readers ideally comprehend multiple diverse texts, in terms of their respective information

sources.

The Multiple-Document Task-based Relevance Assessment and Content Extraction

Model

The MD-TRACE model specifies a general sequence of processes readers might cycle

through when interacting with complex texts (including multiple or non-traditional texts) to

complete an overarching reading task (Rouet & Britt, 2011). In Step 1, readers interpret task

goals based on provided instructions (e.g., Write an essay on whether we should use products

containing GMOs). Readers might also plan a set of procedures they could engage in to

satisfy their task goals. The result is a “task model,” a mental representation of the task that

presumably guides inquiry into the topic (Rouet & Britt, 2011). In Step 2, readers assess

information needs given the current states of their task products (their essays) (Rouet & Britt,

2011). Step 3 reflects a set of sub-processes including a) selecting a document, b) reading and

comprehending the document, and c) integrating current ideas with those from prior-read

documents. In Step 4, task products are created or updated. Finally, in Step 5, readers assess

the sufficiency of their task products. As such, at any point in time, readers can cycle back

through earlier steps if they perceive their products have not sufficiently addressed their task

goals. For example, based on the current states of their task products, readers might decide

there are additional informational needs. As a result, they may return to search engines to

click on the titles of additional texts to evaluate whether they might provide additional

supports for their GMO essays. Thus, decisions to return to earlier steps appear to be

contingent on readers’ perceptions about the adequacy of their final products.

The MD-TRACE model also outlines internal resources that readers should bring to
 6

bear to optimally navigate the described sequence (Rouet & Britt, 2011). These include

general world and specific domain knowledge, knowledge of which source characteristics are

important to consider within the discipline, and appropriate search, processing, evaluation,

and integration strategies. It additionally outlines external resources relevant to the processing

sequence including task specifications, texts, search devices or organizers, and any products

generated along the way (e.g., notes taken during reading) (Rouet & Britt, 2011).

The Disciplinary Literacy Conceptual Framework

Goldman et al.’s (2016) framework describes the discipline-specific nature of what

students need to know about knowledge construction, representation, and communication.

How multiple and non-traditional texts are read and knowledge represented in the discipline

of science, for example, requires guidance from a different set of beliefs about the nature of

knowledge (i.e., epistemic beliefs; Hofer & Bendixen, 2012) than do processes specific to

other disciplines (e.g., history). Goldman et al. (2016) offered core constructs to improve

articulation of knowledge in three disciplines (science, history, literature) that readers would

ideally use to build multiple levels of textual representation previously specified in models of

single and multiple text comprehension. Thus, their framework can be viewed as an extension

of the DMF and MD-TRACE models that importantly highlights the ways that reading and

literacy practices are similar and differ across various disciplines.

For example, readers’ beliefs about knowledge in science might guide them towards

reliable practices for finding and selecting relevant texts on the topic of GMOs. These beliefs

might also direct their evaluations of textual information, including a primary text’s

arguments and any information that accompanies them (e.g., supporting and counter-

arguments posted in a comments section). More specifically, readers’ epistemic beliefs

concerning science could lead them towards practices for evaluating whether available claims

are valid or invalid, whether forms of evidence are reasonable or unreasonable, whether
 7

authors’ credentials make them knowledgeable, credible sources on the topic, and so forth.

Ultimately these types of evaluation practices help determine whether readers will or will not

integrate currently processed information with ideas from prior-read texts.

To contrast, the same students’ practices might look very different if tasked to write an

essay on a history topic (e.g., What preconditions gave rise to the Arab Spring?) because such

a task could be guided by a different set of beliefs about knowledge specific to that discipline.

Readers’ epistemic beliefs concerning history could lead them towards an altogether different

set of reliable practices for evaluating whether available claims are valid or invalid, whether

forms of evidence are reasonable or unreasonable, whether claims and evidence have been

corroborated across multiple sources, in what ways status as primary versus secondary

documents helps readers differentiate whether they should or should not to trust the

information, and so forth (VanSledright & Maggioni, 2016). Thus, Goldman et al.’s (2016)

framework emphasizes that there are distinctive characteristics of learners’ epistemic thinking

that guide all aspects of reading and representing information within a discipline, from

initiating a task model to final assessments of whether the task product sufficiently addresses

the overarching task goal.

The Semantics, Surface, and Source Model of Credibility Evaluation

The 3-S model of Lucassen and colleagues (2011, 2013) describes three strategies

information seekers can use when making credibility assessments about information they find

online. As such, this model focuses prominently on reading on the Internet and on reading of

non-traditional texts. Regarding a first strategy, individuals may consider the semantic

features of information, for example the accuracy of the information. Individuals verify

available information against their relevant domain knowledge and use the extent to which

information is verified as an index of credibility. Thus, with respect to establishing credibility

via this strategy, domain expertise is the primary lens by which readers can decide upon the
 8

factual accuracy of any information they come across (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011;

Lucassen, et al., 2013).

A second strategy involves a consideration of the “surface features” of online

information including a website’s design or aesthetics, the length of an article, and the number

of embedded references, images, and links, to name but a few (e.g., “This information seems

credible because it is long, looks serious, and has a lot of links”). By comparison, those with

lower domain expertise tend to rely more heavily on surface features due to their inherent

inability to disentangle what is factually accurate (Lucassen, et al., 2013).

According to a third strategy, information seekers can consider any relevant prior

experience they may have had with particular sources (e.g., “This information seems credible

because it was published by the BBC, which I consider to be a trustworthy source”). In using

this strategy, individuals use source features found on websites such as the logo in the corner

or a link with “about us” information as indices of credibility. Thus, whereas semantic and

surface features involve the content of a website and its layout, respectively, source features

inform on the information provider, or who has produced the information (Lucassen, et al.,

2013). Taken together, information users rely on these three strategies in concert to help

decide whether they will trust the texts they encounter.

The New Literacies Framework

On a surface level, the new literacies framework identifies a similar set of five

component practices as the MD-TRACE model. However, whereas the MD-TRACE stems

from a more traditional reading comprehension literature, the new literacies framework

explicitly focuses on online reading comprehension and – in doing so – also highlights facets

of problem-solving and question-answering specific to non-traditional types of texts found in

online environments (Kinzer & Leu, 2017; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013). In the

first step, readers identify important problems to solve or questions they would like to answer
 9

(rather than interpreting pre-specified task instructions, as in MD-TRACE). For example, a

reader might set out to learn more about GMOs as a result of reading a scathing opinion

article a friend posted via social media. In a second step, the individual reads for the purpose

of locating information that might help in answering the question of interest. To find

information on the topic, for example, the reader will need to a) generate key words that

return useful websites, b) read a set of links returned from the search engine to infer which

websites might be useful, and c) to skim and scan information presented within the websites

(Leu, et al., 2013). In a third step, the reader decides upon which information is reliable by

critically evaluating the available information (based on accuracy, reliability, potential biases,

and so forth) (Leu, et al., 2013). In a fourth step, the individual synthesizes information

deemed useful for answering the question into a coherent understanding of what was read. In

a final step, the reader communicates the constructed response to an intended audience. To

return to the example, the reader might leave a reply to the posting of the opinion article to

share what was learned about GMOs based on the recent inquiry. Thus, in describing these

five general practices, Leu and colleagues (2013) have also taken great strides in beginning to

identify the new skills, strategies, dispositions, and social practices with which readers must

be proficient to successfully conduct online inquiry.

As a caveat, many Internet reading experiences do not directly reflect the sequence of

steps outlined by the new literacies framework. For example, readers do not always have

concrete research questions in mind but may, rather, arrive at research questions in a more

“bottom up” fashion. Thus, readers may sometimes rapidly toggle amongst several component

processes – entering and revising search terms, skimming and scanning links and accessed

texts – before a preliminary research question of interest materializes. Furthermore, in

evaluating and synthesizing information during reading, readers may realize that there is not

enough (reliable) information. This may guide them towards adapting the question to suit the
 10

available information, or in choosing an altogether new query of interest. Thus, the new

literacies framework richly describes a logical sequence of steps readers might go through to

solve a problem. However, authentic reading experiences may follow different paths, different

iterations amongst the steps, different entry points into the processes, and so forth. As

additional empirical data are collected regarding readers’ engagement with these component

processes, patterns may emerge that warrant a need to revise the framework to account for

more varied approaches towards reading in an information age.

Summary

To summarize, the reviewed models extend our understandings of multiple and non-

traditional text reading. Taken together, they describe a set of processes, strategies, and skills

that – when optimally functioning – could result in effective, efficient comprehension. The

models do, however, differ in terms of the grain sizes with which they operate. For example,

although both the DMF and MD-TRACE were developed from a rich history of research on

single and traditional text comprehension, the former is more fine-grained in its description of

multiple text reading processes compared to the latter. The DMF specifically describes how

readers mentally represent multiple texts in terms of the information sources conveying them.

The MD-TRACE is much broader in scope by offering a general sequence of processes that

readers cycle through to complete an overarching reading task (of which constructing and

modifying a documents model is but one facet). The Disciplinary Literacy conceptual

framework can be viewed as an extension of these models that essentially highlights a) the

ways reading and literacy practices are similar and differ across various disciplines, and b) the

epistemic thinking within each discipline that guides multiple text processing and

representation.

By comparison, the 3-S and new literacies frameworks explicitly focus on online

reading comprehension and – in doing so – highlight the kinds of processes, strategies, and
 11

skills that are described as uniquely important when reading non-traditional texts in online

environments (for further discussion of such processes, strategies, and skills, see sections on

the reading of digital and non-traditional texts below). These models also differ in terms of

grain size. Whereas the 3-S is fine-grained in its specific description of three strategies that

individuals can use when making credibility assessments about online information, the new

literacies model is much broader in scope, offering a sequence of steps one could take when

reading online to solve a problem or answer a question (of which evaluating websites for

credibility is but one facet).Thus, the 3-S model might be considered a more constrained

articulation of a sub-process falling within the broader conceptualization of online reading

represented by the new literacies model.

Finally, we note that all reviewed models outline internal (i.e., individual) and

external (i.e., contextual) resources relevant for successful multiple or non-traditional text

comprehension. Important internal resources include prior knowledge, thinking about

knowledge and knowing, and appropriate strategic processing. The models also agree that

there are key external resources that can facilitate optimal reading and comprehension of

multiple and non-traditional texts. Such resources include task specifications, textual

materials, search devices or organizers, and products generated along the way (e.g., self-

generated text). In the next section, we review empirical evidence regarding a number of these

individual and contextual factors with a focus on multiple text comprehension.

Empirical Work

The Role of Individual and Contextual Factors in Multiple Text Comprehension

Construction of meaning from multiple texts represents a great challenge for readers

regardless of age. Theorists assume that how readers meet this challenge depends on

individual as well as contextual factors. This assumption has considerable empirical backing.

Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that interactions among individual and contextual
 12

factors may affect multiple text comprehension.

Individual factors in multiple text comprehension. Since Wineburg’s (1991)

landmark study in the area of multiple text reading, a number of studies have provided

evidence that what readers already know about the topic discussed across texts impacts their

multiple text comprehension. Thus, while research in the 1990s (Rouet, Britt, Mason, &

Perfetti, 1996; Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996; Wineburg, 1991) indicated

that students with limited prior knowledge may have difficulties integrating information

across multiple historical texts, more recent research (Bråten, Anmarkrud, et al., 2014; Bråten

& Strømsø, 2010a, 2010b; Bråten, Strømsø, & Britt, 2009; Gil, Bråten, Vidal-Abarca, &

Strømsø, 2010a; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009; Strømsø, Bråten, & Britt, 2010) has shown that

students’ prior knowledge is a predictor of their comprehension when reading multiple texts

on a scientific issue. Presumably, prior knowledge contributes to comprehension because it

facilitates bridging inferences that create interconnection and coherence in complex, divergent

text materials. Compared to the reading of single texts, multiple text reading may represent an

added complexity in this regard because it requires the building of links and coherence not

only within but also across texts (Britt & Rouet, 2012; Goldman, 2004).

In addition to individual differences with respect to prior knowledge about the topic

or domain, individual differences with respect to readers’ beliefs about that topic or domain

knowledge, that is their epistemic beliefs, seem to matter in terms of multiple text

comprehension (for reviews, see Bråten, Britt, Strømsø, & Rouet, 2011; Bråten, Strømsø, &

Ferguson, 2016). There is thus a growing research base indicating that beliefs concerning the

certainty, simplicity, and source of knowledge, as well as regarding the justification of

knowledge claims, are related to readers’ ability to construct integrated understandings from

the reading of multiple texts (Barzilai & Ka’adan, in press; Barzilai & Zohar, 2012; Bråten,

Ferguson, Strømsø, & Anmarkrud, 2013; Bråten, Ferguson, Strømsø, & Anmarkrud, 2014;
 13

Bråten & Strømsø, 2010b; Bråten, Strømsø, & Samuelstuen, 2008; Kammerer, Bråten,

Gerjets, & Strømsø, 2013; Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011; Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010;

Pieschl, Stahl, & Bromme, 2008; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009; Strømsø, Bråten, & Samuelstuen,

2008). In general, this body of research has shown that viewing knowledge as tentative rather

than certain, complex rather than simple, originating in expert authors rather than the reader,

and justified by rules of inquiry and cross-checking of knowledge sources rather than own

opinion and experience predict students’ abilities to synthesize information from expository

texts expressing diverse and even contradictory viewpoints on a particular topic. Basically,

adaptive epistemic beliefs in the context of multiple text reading seem well aligned with the

open, ill-structured problem that trying to construct meaning from multiple, often conflicting,

texts represents.

Arguably, prior knowledge and adaptive epistemic beliefs may have limited value to

readers if they cannot motivate themselves to apply those resources in the service of multiple

text comprehension. Accordingly, there is evidence to suggest that individual differences in

motivation play a role in the context of multiple text reading (Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud,

& Strømsø, 2013: Strømsø & Bråten, 2009; Strømsø et al., 2010). For example, Strømsø and

Bråten (2009) found that topic interest, specifically students’ self-reported individual interest

and engagement in issues and activities concerning the topic of climate change, uniquely

explained variance in multiple text comprehension when entered into a regression equation

together with measures of prior knowledge and epistemic beliefs concerning the same topic.

Moreover, Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et al. (2013) demonstrated that readers’ beliefs in

their capabilities to understand what they read in science, that is their science reading self-

efficacy, was a unique positive predictor of multiple text comprehension when several other

relevant individual difference variables were controlled for. Because readers must persist in

reading several texts on the same topic and engage in building coherence across those texts, it
 14

may generally require more energy and engagement to learn from and comprehend multiple

texts than to work with one coherent text on the same topic (Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et

al., 2013). The role of reading motivation therefore may be more pronounced in multiple text

than in single text contexts.

Compared to the individual difference variables discussed above, strategic processing

may be conceived of as a more proximal contributor to multiple text comprehension, that is,

as a contributor through which those other individual difference variables work (Bråten,

Anmarkrud, et al., 2014). Again, this area of research owes much to Wineburg (1991), who

found that historians heavily relied on a strategic approach including “corroboration” and

“sourcing” when trying to comprehend multiple texts on a historical event. While

corroboration involved comparing across texts and examining potential discrepancies among

them, sourcing involved noting and using information about the source of a text (e.g., its

author or text genre). Whereas the historians used these strategies to piece together a coherent

interpretation of the event described across texts, high school students participating in

Wineburg’s study seldom used corroboration and sourcing when reading the same texts.

Building on Wineburg’s (1991) seminal work, many researchers have provided

evidence for a link between deeper-level intertextual processing during reading and multiple

text comprehension, using methodologies ranging from verbal protocols (Anmarkrud, Bråten,

& Strømsø, 2014; Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, & Brodowinska, 2012; Strømsø,

Bråten, & Samuelstuen, 2003; Wolfe & Goldman, 2005) to note taking (Britt & Sommer,

2004; Hagen, Braasch, & Bråten, 2014; Kobayashi, 2009a, 2009b), reading patterns (i.e.,

linear vs. nonlinear reading; Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, et al., 2013; Salmerón, Gil,

Bråten, & Strømsø, 2010), and task-specific self-reported multiple text comprehension

strategies (Bråten, Anmarkrud, et al., 2014; Bråten & Strømsø, 2011). The sourcing strategy

initially described by Wineburg has been given particular attention by researchers in the last
 15

decade. Thus, quite a few correlational studies have demonstrated that the extent to which

students consider trustworthiness based on source features may predict their learning and

comprehension when reading about controversial issues in multiple texts (Anmarkrud et al.,

2014; Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015; Barzilai, Tzadok, & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015; Bråten et al.,

2009; Goldman et al., 2012; List, Alexander, & Stephens, 2017; Strømsø et al., 2010; Wiley

et al., 2009). In addition, recent intervention work has strengthened the idea that students’

consideration of source feature information during reading promotes comprehension of

multiple texts (Barzilai & Ka’adan, in press; Braasch, Bråten, Strømsø, Anmarkrud, &

Ferguson, 2013; Mason, Junyent, & Tornatora, 2014; Wiley et al., 2009).

Several studies indicate that readers’ strategic processing mediates the effects of prior

knowledge, epistemic beliefs, and motivation on multiple text comprehension (Barzilai &

Eshet-Alkalai, 2015; Barzilai et al., 2015; Bråten, Anmarkrud, et al., 2014; Kobayashi,

2009b). For example, Bråten, Anmarkrud, et al. (2014), in a path analytic study, found that

readers’ knowledge about the topic of the texts, beliefs about the justification of knowledge

claims, and reading motivation indirectly affected their multiple text comprehension through

their use of deeper-level intertextual strategies. Of note is that such strategies involve

intentional attempts to control and modify meaning construction during multiple text reading

(cf., Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008). Presumably, when there is a high amount of content

overlap between texts, automatic, bottom-up resonance (i.e., associative) processes (O’Brian

& Myers, 1999) may drive intertextual integration during reading (Beker, Jolles, Lorch, & van

den Brock, 2016); otherwise, top-down strategic processing may be necessary (Kurby, Britt,

& Magliano, 2005).

Contextual factors in multiple text comprehension. Readers’ processing and

comprehension of multiple texts have been shown to be influenced by the reading task (for

review, see Bråten, Gil, & Strømsø, 2011). Most empirical work on this issue concerns the
 16

effects of “general purpose instructions” (McCrudden & Schraw, 2007) to construct

arguments based on textual content versus other general purpose instructions, most notably to

summarize information across texts (Bråten & Strømsø, 2010a; Gil et al., 2010a, Gil, Bråten,

Vidal-Abarca, & Strømsø, 2010b; Hagen et al., 2014; Le Bigot & Rouet, 2007; Naumann,

Wechsung, & Krems, 2009; Stadtler, Scharrer, Skodzik, & Bromme, 2014; Wiley et al., 2009;

Wiley & Voss, 1999). In general, this body of research indicates that argument tasks can lead

to more elaborative processing and deeper understanding than summary tasks. As discussed

below, such positive effects of argument tasks may be moderated by individual difference

variables, however.

In addition to the reading task, several aspects of the nature of the textual materials

seem to influence multiple text processing and comprehension. These include the type of texts

that readers encounter, such as primary versus secondary source texts (Rouet et al., 1996),

informational versus policy-related texts (i.e., explanatory texts with and without

recommendations for personal and public policy changes; Blaum, Griffin, Wiley, & Britt, in

press), and popular and social media texts versus textbooks or scholarly essays (Bråten,

Braasch, Strømsø, & Ferguson, 2015; List et al., 2017). In particular, research has focused on

the role of conflicting information across sources in promoting strategic multiple text

processing and comprehension, with a number of studies (Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt,

2012; Ferguson, Bråten, Strømsø, & Anmarkrud, 2013; Kammerer & Gerjets, 2014;

Kammerer, Kalbfell, & Gerjets, 2016; Rouet, Le Bigot, de Pereyra, & Britt, 2016; Salmerón,

Macedo-Rouet, & Rouet, 2016; Saux, Britt, Le Bigot, Vibert, Burin, & Rouet, 2017; Strømsø,

Bråten, Britt, & Ferguson, 2013) indicating that the presence of conflicts may increase not

only adaptive text processing, especially sourcing, but also integration of information across

texts (for review, see Braasch & Bråten, 2016).

Interacting factors in multiple text comprehension. Importantly, individual and

 17

contextual factors seem to affect multiple text processing and comprehension interactively as

well as independently. For example, research has indicated that argument tasks, such as

instructions to read for the purpose of constructing arguments, may not be equally beneficial

for all readers of multiple texts. Rather, their effects may be moderated by readers’ prior

knowledge about the topic of the texts (Gil et al., 2010a, 2010b) as well as their epistemic

beliefs concerning the certainty of knowledge (Bråten, Gil, et al., 2011; Bråten & Strømsø,

2010a; Gil et al., 2010b). In brief, readers lacking prior knowledge or believing that

knowledge about the topic is certain rather than tentative and evolving may have a hard time

trying to construct arguments from multiple texts and actually be better off when given the

simpler task of summarizing information presented in a set of texts. In the same vein, research

by Kobayashi (2009a) and Hagen et al. (2014) suggests that elaborative intertextual

processing plays a more pronounced role when readers are tasked to identify or construct

arguments than when they are given other reading tasks, such as producing a summary.

In addition to such interactions between reading task instructions and individual

factors, a few multiple text studies have indicated interactions between the nature of the

reading materials and individual factors (Barzilai & Eseth-Alkalai, 2015; Trevors, Feyzi-

Behnagh, Azevedo, & Bouchet, 2016), between different individual factors (Ferguson &

Bråten, 2013), and between different contextual factors (Stadtler et al., 2014). As an example

of interactions between the nature of the reading materials and individual differences, Barzilai

and Eseth-Alkalai (2015) found that presenting conflicting information across texts promoted

sourcing only among readers believing in uncertain knowledge and the need to justify

knowledge claims through critical thinking and evidence. In turn, readers’ sourcing activities

predicted their integration of information from multiple texts in written arguments.

Moreover, there is also some evidence to suggest that different individual difference

variables may interactively affect multiple text comprehension. For example, Ferguson and
 18

Bråten (2013) used cluster analysis to investigate interactions between students’ prior

knowledge about the topic of the texts and their epistemic beliefs when reading multiple

conflicting texts on a socio-scientific topic. These authors found that students who had high

prior knowledge and, at the same time, believed that knowledge claims should be justified by

checking multiple external sources for consistency rather than relying on their own personal

opinions were particularly well positioned to construct integrated understandings from the

texts.

Finally, different contextual factors may interact to affect multiple text

comprehension. Stadtler et al. (2014) compared the effects of argument and summary reading

tasks, using reading materials that either signaled the existence of conflicting claims across

texts through rhetorical means (e.g., by starting a text with the following phrase: “Contrary to

what some health professionals argue, …”) or not. In that study, beneficial effects of an

argument task on readers’ sourcing were observed only among participants presented with

reading materials in which intertextual conflicts were explicitly signaled.

Reading Printed versus Digital Texts

Four decades ago, research on the similarities and differences between reading printed

and digital texts was initiated with a focus on ergonomic aspects, such as the colors of text

and background and the size of the screen (for a review, see Dillon, 1992). This research

raised strong concerns about potential drawbacks of digital reading as compared to print

reading, for example about digital texts being slower to read. For several reasons, it is difficult

to extrapolate from the early findings to the current situation. First, the rise of the Internet and

the proliferation of mobile devices in the late 1990s have profoundly affected the availability

and interconnectedness of digital texts. Second, current readers are not unfamiliar with digital

texts, as was the case when the early comparison studies were conducted (Dillon, 1992).

Finally, the improved quality of digital screens has brought the visual experience of reading
 19

digital and printed texts much closer (Benedetto, Drai-Zerbib, Pedrotti, Tissier, & Baccino,

2013).

From a psychological perspective, comparisons of how readers process printed and

digital texts have addressed three main issues in the last decades. These concern preference,

comprehension, and self-regulation of reading. Regarding preference, the extent to which

readers prefer digital rather than printed texts has been found to depend on their age. Thus,

when interviewed in small scale studies, middle and high school students born around 2000

(so-called ‘millenials’) have expressed a clear preference for reading using digital media, such

as e-books or tablets, as opposed to reading printed books (Jones & Brown, 2011; Moje,

Overby, Tysvaer, & Morris, 2008; Tveit, & Mangen, 2014). When asked to explain their

experiences with different media, students from 3rd to 10th grade seem to associate digital

reading with more positive and less negative affect (e.g., more fun, less tiring) and perceive

that it improves their cognitive processing (e.g., increased attention, better memory; Tveit, &

Mangen, 2014). This perception of improved cognitive processing is not necessarily

associated with better performance, however (see below). Presumably due to their preference

for digital media, digital reading may also increase reading engagement for young students,

particularly for struggling readers (Fletcher, & Nicholas, 2016; Maynard, 2010). A note of

caution is needed when interpreting such findings, however, because there may be a novelty

effect underlying young students’ preference for digital devices (cf., Clark, 1983).

Interestingly, a large scale study with young British students that focused on their actual

reading experiences found that those who read only digital texts reportedly enjoyed reading

much less than those who read only printed or both types of texts (Picton, 2014).

That reader preference may depend on age is evidenced by the fact that older,

undergraduate readers (born in the mid-1990s) have been shown to display an opposite pattern

compared to younger readers, with adult readers strongly preferring printed rather than digital
 20

texts (Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali, & Huntington, 2007). Moreover, this preference for

printed texts among adult readers seems to be consistent across countries, ranging from USA

to Germany and Japan (Baron, 2015; Kurata, Ishita, Miyata, & Minami, 2016), across levels

of experience with digital reading, ranging from ‘digital immigrants’ to ‘digital natives’

(Kretzschmar et al., 2013; Kurata et al., 2016), and across reading purposes, ranging from

study-related reading to reading for pleasure (Baron, 2015; Kurata et al., 2016). In fact, even

people who spend more time reading on screen than on paper have been shown to clearly

prefer reading printed texts (Kurata et al., 2016). At this point, we can only speculate about

the reasons that adults prefer reading printed texts. However, small scale studies have

suggested that adult readers perceive that print reading facilitates concentration, memory, and

comprehension, compared to digital reading (Baron, 2015). With respect to the reading of

narratives, in particular, it has been argued that print reading facilitates readers’ immersion in

fictional worlds (i.e., phenomenological immersion) to a greater extent than does digital

reading (Mangen, 2008). It is thus possible that more experience with reading both printed

and digital texts may have led adult readers to prefer the former.

Regarding the issue of whether print reading actually improves comprehension

compared to digital reading, results are mixed, however. Thus, while some research

comparing print and digital reading has not found any difference in terms of comprehension

performance (Holzinger et al, 2011; Kretzschmar et al., 2013: Margolin, Driscoll, Toland, &

Kegler, 2013; Singer & Alexander, 2017), other studies have indicated that digital reading

may have negative effects on comprehension (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Mangen,

Walgermo, & Brønnick, 2013). Attempts to clarify this issue have investigated variables that

might moderate the relationship between students’ reading and their comprehension

performance. In particular, it has been suggested that reading digital compared to printed texts

may affect the way readers’ perceive their current understanding of the texts as well as their
 21

subsequent regulation of study time (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Ackerman & Lauterman,

2012; Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014), with digital reading possibly generating a false feeling

of knowing, which, in turn, could have detrimental effects on comprehension. Accordingly, in

a series of studies comparing undergraduates’ reading of identical printed or digital texts,

Ackerman and colleagues (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011, Exp. 1; Lauterman & Ackerman,

2014) found that when reading digital texts, students tended to overestimate their

understanding. As a likely result of this overestimation, students also spent less time reading

and achieved poorer comprehension when reading digital texts (Ackerman & Goldsmith,

2011, Exp. 2). Such difficulties monitoring and regulating their digital reading have been

found to be particularly pronounced among students preferring reading on paper (Lauterman

& Ackerman, 2014), which suggests that motivational aspects linked to media preferences can

influence students’ self-regulation during reading. Of note is, however, that Singer and

Alexander (2017) failed to replicate the findings reported by Ackerman and colleagues in a

follow-up study.

Finally, the reading of hypertext has received particular attention from researchers

interested in digital reading. Hypertext denotes a digital document that includes links to

related documents, creating a network of information. Hypertext therefore requires that

readers choose which links to navigate and which to ignore during reading, which allows

them to adjust reading experience to their needs and potentially improve comprehension, to a

greater extent than when reading non-navigable documents (Fesel, Segers, Clariana, &

Verhoeven, 2015). For successful comprehension to occur, however, readers need to navigate

between conceptually related units of information and simultaneously pay attention to those

units in order to integrate them (van den Broek & Kendeou, 2015). In contrast, if readers

navigate documents in an incoherent sequence (Salmerón, Cañas, Kintsch, & Fajardo, 2005)

or overuse a quick scanning of the documents (Salmerón, Naumann, García, & Fajardo,
 22

2016), comprehension difficulties may occur. To prevent such difficulties, hypertexts

typically include overviews, that is, navigable graphical representations that display the

structure of the hypertext. Such overviews can scaffold comprehension by facilitating readers’

organization of their mental hypertext representations (Amadieu & Salmerón, 2014),

especially if readers pay close attention to overviews at the beginning of reading sessions

(Salmerón, Baccino, Cañas, Madrid, & Fajardo, 2009; Salmerón & García, 2011).

Reading Non-Traditional Texts in Digital Contexts

Much reading on the Internet takes the form of social activity that mimics face-to-face

interaction. In Web 2.0, authors tend to adopt a style closer to oral than written language

(Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). Readers, for their part, are expected to participate in

“dialogues” by sharing (at least some of) what they read or comment on the writings of others.

These features of non-traditional texts may have consequences for digital reading that we

address in the following sub-sections.

Language in non-traditional texts. Web blogs and forums are major digital spaces

for social interactions in Web 2.0. In such spaces, people typically share information and

provide comments. In the context of schooling, blogs and forums might be seen as

empowering students in the sense of giving them independent access to academic content.

Popular examples are scientific blogs, which often present complex scientific content from the

school curriculum in simplified ways. Even when such blogs contain high-quality content,

they may come with certain costs, however. This is because blogs tend to use less academic

language, with most sentences starting with pronouns, verbs referring to actions rather than

relations, and long sentences sequencing rather than embedding information (Snow, 2010). In

this way, extensive blog use may limit students’ exposure to helpful models of academic

language, essential to comprehend academic texts and the phenomena under study (Snow,

2010).
 23

The same concern applies to web forums, where any user can post questions and

receive answers and recommendations from other users. Such forums are used for a variety of

purposes, asking for advice on class assignments as well as personal problems (Shah &

Kitzie, 2012). However, an additional concern about web forums is that comments vary

greatly in terms of authors’ competence and the quality of the information they provide. On

the positive side, recent research has indicated that students, from early elementary school

onward, are rather unwilling to accept information provided by non-expert authors in web

forums, at least when expert sources also participate in the discussions (Salmerón et al., 2016;

Winter & Krämer, 2012). More problematic, however, is the argumentative style of many

forum comments. Academic texts typically present reasons and evidence to support claims

and dismiss purely personal views as unreliable. In contrast, authors in web forums often

provide personal anecdotal experiences in support of their claims (Betsch, Ulshöfer,

Renkewitz, & Betsch, 2011; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). This argumentative style seems

particularly appealing to younger students. For example, Salmerón et al. (2016) found that

fifth- and sixth-graders were more likely to recommend expert messages referring to personal

experiences than expert messages referring to other information resources (e.g., a hospital

web page) in support of author claims. The same study showed that even eight- and ninth-

graders recommended messages referring to personal experiences to the same extent as

messages referring to other information sources. In sum, despite the new opportunities they

represent, encouraging the use of blogs and forums in order to increase students’ engagement

with curricular content may require that teachers provide additional instruction targeting

academic vocabulary and the rhetoric of academic language and argumentation (Snow, 2010).

Social interaction in reading non-traditional texts. Somewhat ironically, engaging

in different forms of social interaction during reading may sometimes result in

communication problems. We discuss such effects in relation to two typical online social
 24

contexts: micro-blogging (e.g., Twitter) and news comments. On micro-blogging sites, users

share brief comments, which can be grouped by topic by means of hashtags. Readers decide

whether or not they will repost a comment to share it with their connections. One might argue

that such decision-making regarding reposting is likely to engage readers in deeper processing

of messages, which, in turn, will boost comprehension. Alternatively, this decision-making

process might come with a cognitive cost that is detrimental to comprehension. Recently,

Jiang, Hou, and Wang (2016) tried to clarify this issue by having two groups of undergraduate

students read a series of messages dealing with controversial topics on a micro-blogging site.

In one group, participants could repost any messages they wanted, whereas in the other group,

participants just read the messages with no social actions allowed. Results showed that

participants in the “reposting group” reported higher cognitive load during reading and

obtained lower scores on a comprehension test, particularly with respect to the messages they

actually reposted. Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner (2011) found that users who expected to have

future access to information (e.g., because they thought the information was stored in a

computer) had poorer recall for that information than for information that could not be stored.

One possibility is that the social act of sharing induces a perception of ‘storage’ because

readers expect connected users to respond to the shared information, with this resulting in a

more shallow encoding of the information.

Another social context relevant to the reading of non-traditional texts involves online

news. In this scenario, readers can comment on particular pieces of news and potentially use

such comments to expand the information provided in the news in order to form an educated

opinion on the issues in question. In a large scale study including a sample representative of

the US population, Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, and Ladwig (2014) presented

participants with an online newspaper article on the pros and cons of nanotechnology, which

was followed by either civil (polite) or uncivil (insulting) comments. In Western media,
 25

uncivil online comments are quite frequent (Coe, Kenski, & Rains, 2014). Anderson et al.

(2014) found that uncivil comments led to more polarized attitudes among participants. Thus,

in a non-traditional reading scenario involving intense social discussion, readers may

disregard balanced views presented in original articles and instead move closer towards

extreme views voiced by uncivil agents in online comments.

Conclusions, Implications, and Future Directions

The theoretical and empirical work discussed in this chapter highlights the relevance

and importance of focusing on multiple and non-traditional texts within reading research.

Thus, our discussion of several viable theoretical frameworks as well as related empirical

evidence indicates that multiple and non-traditional texts, while offering many new

opportunities in terms of engagement, integrated understanding, and social interaction, also

pose a range of new challenges compared to the reading of single traditional texts. Current

conceptualizations address the increased complexity involved in dealing with such texts, most

notably with respect to searching for information, attending to sources, evaluating the

relevance and credibility of information, and integrating information across texts.

Accordingly, empirical work confirms that effective and efficient processing and

comprehension of multiple and non-traditional texts demand much of readers regardless of

age, with this burgeoning research base indicating that a range of individual and contextual

factors, as well as their interaction, affect how well readers are able to reap the potential

benefits of the new literacy landscape.

Despite the remarkable progress that has been made in this area of reading research in

this century, however, there is much to be explicated and investigated regarding the reading of

multiple and non-traditional texts. In terms of theory, it is a clear need to expand well-

established conceptualizations of the reading process and reading comprehension, rooted in

the single-text paradigm (McNamara & Magliano, 2009), to encompass the reading of
 26

multiple and non-traditional texts. Thus, although several frameworks relevant to the reading

of multiple and non-traditional texts already exist (Britt et al., 2013; Goldman et al., 2016;

Leu et al., 2013; Lucassen et al., 2013; Rouet & Britt, 2011), those frameworks may deal with

only some aspects of these forms of reading or lack the explanatory power and specificity

necessary to derive specific, testable hypotheses from them. Attempts to forge a more

coherent theory from the promising, albeit somewhat rudimentary, frameworks that currently

exist is thus an important agenda for future reading research. Of note is that such a theory also

needs to build on and incorporate basic insights gained from research on single-text reading.

Moreover, further theoretical clarification and refinement need to proceed in parallel with

empirical work aiming to confirm (or disconfirm) specific relationships and effects initially

postulated. Presumably, intervention work will be an important element of these efforts.

In addition to its implications for (re-)conceptualizing reading within reading research,

a shift of emphasis towards multiple and non-traditional texts also has instructional

implications. While school-based intervention work targeting multiple-text processing and

comprehension has produced promising results (for review, see Bråten & Braasch, in press;

Bråten et al., in press), there is need for much more experimental work that meets “best

evidence” criteria (Slavin, 1986) and, thus, allows for causal inferences. And, while many

students use a lot of time engaging with non-traditional texts in digital contexts outside school

(Naumann, 2015), challenges involved in processing and interpretation of such texts are not

systematically addressed within reading instruction in school, if attended to at all. This gap

between reading instruction in school and students’ reading out of school may have serious

consequences because students are not really trained to become competent readers in the

online social contexts where they do much, if not most, of their reading, with research-based

knowledge of whether or how students transfer what they learn in schooled reading contexts

to unschooled contexts essentially lacking. Recent research has suggested, however, that time
 27

spent on online reading involving social interactions may be negatively related to students’

print reading skills (Duncan, McGeown, Griffiths, Stothard, & Dobai, 2015; Naumann, 2015).

Take, for example, the crucial 21st century literacy skills of sourcing and critical

evaluation of knowledge claims by considering the reasons and evidence presented in support

of those claims (Alexander & the Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory, 2012; Bråten

& Braasch, in press). To the extent that such competencies are taught in school, for example

within disciplinary literacy practices in history and science (Britt, Richter, & Rouet, 2014;

Goldman et al., 2016), it is an open question whether this will have any consequences for how

students engage and cope with multiple and non-traditional texts out of school. The risk is,

therefore, that students, unaffected by the school’s efforts to teach them such critical reading

skills, will disregard essential features of source credibility (i.e., expertise and

trustworthiness) and rely on claims justified by personal opinions and experiences rather than

reasons and evidence when reading in online social contexts out of school. Moreover, such

“uncritical habits of mind” may continue into adult life, potentially influencing not only

individual attitude formation, knowledge generation, and action tendencies, but also

democratic discourse at the level of society. The most pertinent issue, then, is how the

school’s reading instruction can be brought to life in the sense of addressing and targeting

students’ real life reading of multiple and non-traditional texts in ways that matter for their

development as critical readers and learners both in and out of school. Importantly, this seems

to require that students’ reading of non-traditional texts in digital contexts, hitherto

representing an essentially out-of-school activity, is no longer proceeding parallel to and

largely unaffected by instructional efforts to promote reading skills but, rather, given due

attention within the school’s reading instruction. It goes without saying that designing and

evaluating the effects of instructional efforts to address this issue are a formidable challenge

to future reading researchers.

 28

In addition to the broad implications for theory and instruction discussed above, and

the calls for further theoretical and empirical work accompanying those implications, several

more specific issues are in need of future research. These include (but are not limited to)

interactions among individual and contextual factors in the processing and comprehension of

not only multiple but also non-traditional texts, effects of print versus digital reading on self-

regulation and comprehension, and effects of the social process of sharing textual information

on depth of processing and comprehension performance. The exponential increase in the

availability and accessibility of multiple and non-traditional texts on almost any topic has

changed the landscape of reading in the last decades. Hopefully, this chapter will contribute to

bringing the reading of multiple and non-traditional texts to the forefront of reading research

as well.

References

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen

versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 18-32.

Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or

on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers

in Human Behavior, 28, 1816-1828.

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P.D., & Paris, S.G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading

skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.

Alexander, P.A., & the Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory (2012).

Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist,

47, 259-280.

Amadieu, F., & Salmerón, L. (2014). Concept maps for comprehension and navigation of

hypertexts. In R. Hanewald & D. Ifenthaler (Eds), Digital knowledge maps in

education (pp. 41-59). New York: Springer.

 29

Anderson, A.A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Xenos, M.A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The

“Nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373-387.

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.

Baron, N.S. (2015). Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Barzilai, S., & Eseth-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension

of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86-103.

Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (in press). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The

interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and

Learning.

Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert

accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional

Science, 43, 737-766.

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating

online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 39-85.

Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., & van den Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts:

activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing, 29,

1161-1178.

Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers and

visual fatigue. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83676.

Betsch, C., Ulshöfer, C., Renkewitz, F., & Betsch, T. (2011). The influence of narrative vs.
 30

statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making, 31,

742-753.

Blaum, D., Griffin, T.D., Wiley, J., & Britt, M.A. (in press). Thinking about global warming:

Effect of policy-related documents and prompts on learning about causes of climate

change. Discourse Processes.

Braasch, J.L.G., & Bråten, I. (2016). The Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-

ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Submitted manuscript.

Braasch, J.L.G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L.E. (2013).

Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple

documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 180-195.

Braasch, J.L.G., Rouet, J.F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M.A. (2012). Readers’ use of source

information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450-465.

Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & 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, I., & Braasch, J.L.G. (in press). Key issues in research on students’ critical reading

and learning in the 21st century information society. In C. Ng & B. Bartlett (Eds.),

Improving reading in the 21st century: International research and innovations.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Bråten, I., Braasch, J.L.G., Strømsø, H.I., & Ferguson, L.E. (2015). Establishing

trustworthiness when students read multiple documents containing conflicting

scientific evidence. Reading Psychology, 36, 315-349.

Bråten, I., Britt, M.A., Strømsø, H.I., & Rouet, J.F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the

comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational

Psychologist, 46, 48-70.

 31

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L.E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H.I. (2013). Prediction of learning and

comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level

processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26, 321-

348.

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L.E., Strømsø, H.I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs

and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education,

28, 879-902.

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L.E., Strømsø, H.I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (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, 58-85.

Bråten, I., Gil, L., & Strømsø, H.I. (2011). The role of different task instructions and reader

characteristics when learning from multiple expository texts. In M.T. McCrudden, J.P.

Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 95-122).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (in press). The role of sourcing in discourse

comprehension. In M.F. Schober, M.A. Britt, & D.N. Rapp (Eds.), Handbook of

discourse processes (2nd. ed.). New York: Routledge.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010a). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on

the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-

31.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010b). When law students read multiple documents about global

warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge

and knowing. Instructional Science, 38, 635-657.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read
 32

multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111-130.

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., & Britt, M.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.

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., & Ferguson, L.E. (2016). The role of epistemic beliefs in the

comprehension of single and multiple texts. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of

individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 67-79). New York:

Routledge.

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., & Samuelstuen, M.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, 814-840.

Britt, M.A., & Gabrys, G.L. (2000). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the World Wide

Web. In C.R. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web (pp. 73-90).

San Diego, CA: Academic 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). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Britt, M.A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed

reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational

Psychologist, 49, 104-122.

Britt, M.A., & Rouet, J.F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and

their acquisition. In J.R. Kirby & M.J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of

learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276-314). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

 33

Britt, M.A., Rouet, J.F., & Braasch, J.L.G. (2013). 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: Routledge.

Britt, M.A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure

focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25, 313-339.

Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational

Research, 53, 445-459.

Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S.A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of

incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658-679.

Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical

literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297-1326.

Duncan, L.G., McGeown, S.P., Griffiths, Y.M., Stothard, S.E., & Dobai, A. (2015).

Adolescent reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as

predictors of reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 209-238.

Ferguson, L.E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs:

Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25,

49-61.

Ferguson, L.E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and

comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of

conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 100-114.

Fesel, S.S., Segers, E., Clariana, R.B., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Quality of children’s

knowledge representations in digital text comprehension: Evidence from pathfinder

networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 135-146.

Fletcher, J., & Nicholas, K. (2016). Reading for 11–13-year-old students in the digital age:

New Zealand case studies. Education 3-13, 1-12.

 34

Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010a). Summary versus argument

tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 35, 157-173.

Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010b). Understanding and integrating

multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading

Psychology, 31, 30-68.

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. 317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Goldman, S.R., Braasch, J.L.G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A.C., & Brodowinska. K.M. (2012).

Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and

poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381.

Goldman, S.R., Britt, M.A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., … Project

READI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A

conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51, 219-

246.

Goldman, S.R., Ozuru, Y., Braasch, J.L.G., Manning, F.H., Lawless, K.A., Gomez, K.W., &

Slanovits, M.J. (2011). Literacies for learning: A multiple source comprehension

illustration. In N.L. Stein & S.W. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental cognitive

science goes to school (pp. 30-44). New York: Routledge.

Hagen, Å.M., Braasch, J.L.G., & Bråten, I. (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, 141-157.

Hofer, B.K., & Bendixen, L.D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future

directions. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational

 35

Psychology Handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 227-256).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V., & Ziefle, M.

(2011). Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance

contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. International Journal

of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 563-570.

Jiang, T., Hou, Y., & Wang, Q. (2016). Does micro-blogging make us “shallow”? Sharing

information online interferes with information comprehension. Computers in Human

Behavior, 59, 210-214.

Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: A comparison between E-books and

traditional print books in an elementary classroom. International Journal of

Instruction, 4, 1308-1470.

Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H.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, 1193-1203.

Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Quellenbewertungen und Quellenverweise beim Lesen

und Zusammenfassen wissenschaftsbezogener Informationen aus multiplen Webseiten

[Source evaluations and source references when reading and summarizing science-

related information from multiple web pages]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 42, 7-23.

Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & Gerjets, P. (2016). Is this information source commercially

biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source

information. Discourse Processes, 53, 430-456.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Kinzer, C.K., & Leu, D.J. (2017). New Literacies and new literacies within changing
 36

digital environments. In M.A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy

and theory. Singapore: Springer.

Kobayashi, K. (2009a). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of

external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37, 311-324.

Kobayashi, K. (2009b). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college

experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual

Differences, 19, 130-134.

Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., &

Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort:

Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media.

PloS ONE, 8(2), e56178.

Kurata, K., Ishita, E., Miyata, Y., & Minami, Y. (in press). Print or digital? Reading behavior

and preferences in Japan. Journal of the Association for Information Science and

Technology.

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, 335-362.

Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and

calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455-463.

Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J.F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and

prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of

Literacy Research, 39, 445-470.

Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L.A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-

level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E.

Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of

reading (6th ed., pp. 1150-1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
 37

Leu, D.J., & Maykel, C. (2016). Thinking in new ways and in new times about reading.

Literacy Research and Instruction, 55, 122-127.

List, A., Alexander, P.A., & Stephens, L.A. (2017). Trust but verify: Examining the

association between students’ sourcing behaviors and ratings of text trustworthiness.

Discourse Processes, 54, 83-104.

Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M.L., & Schraagen, J.M. (2013). Topic familiarity and

information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 64, 254-264.

Lucassen, T., & Schraagen, J.M. (2011). Factual accuracy and trust in information: The role

of expertise. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,

62, 1232-1242.

Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J.L.G., Britt, M.A., & Rouet, J.F. (2013). Teaching fourth and

fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition

and Instruction, 31, 204-226.

Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion. Journal of Research in

Reading, 31, 404-419.

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus

computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of

Educational Research, 58, 61-68.

Margolin, S.J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M.J., & Kegler, J.L. (2013). E‐readers, computer

screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512-519.

Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous

reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and

their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137-151.

 38

Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial

topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38, 607-633.

Mason, L., Junyent, A.A., & Tornatora, M.C. (2014). Epistemic evaluation and

comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics:

Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers & Education, 76, 143-

157.

Maynard, S. (2010). The impact of e-books on young children's reading habits. Publishing

Research Quarterly, 26, 236–248.

McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing.

Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139.

McNamara, D.S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension.

Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297-384.

Moje, E.B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent

literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 107-

154.

Naumann, A.B., Wechsung, I., & Krems, J.F. (2009). How to support learning from multiple

hypertext sources. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 639-646.

Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement,

navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 53,

263-277.

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. 35-54). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.
 39

Perfetti, C.A., Rouet, J.F., & Britt, M.A. (1999). Towards 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: Erlbaum.

Picton, I. (2014). The impact of ebooks on the reading motivation and reading skills of

children and young people: A rapid literature review. London: National Literacy

Trust.

Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated

learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17-37.

Rouet, J.F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rouet, J.F., & 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). Greenwich, CT: 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, 478–493.

Rouet, J.F., Le Bigot, L., de Pereyra, G., & Britt, M.A. (2016). Whose story is this?

Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in short narratives.

Reading and Writing, 29, 1549-1570.

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Jamali, H.R., & Huntington, P. (2007). What do faculty and

students really think about e-books? Aslib Proceedings, 59, 489-511.

Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J.J., Madrid, R.I., & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical

overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext? Computers & Education,

53, 1308-1319.

Salmerón, L., Cañas, J.J., Kintsch, W., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext

comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40, 171-191.

Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Reading skills and children's navigation strategies in
 40

hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1143–1151.

Salmerón, L., Gil, L., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010). Comprehension effects of signalling

relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior,

26, 419-426.

Salmerón, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Rouet, J.F. (2016). Multiple viewpoints increase

students’ attention to source features in social question and answer forum messages.

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2404-2419.

Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (in press). Scanning and deep processing

of information in hypertext: An eye-tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

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 and Cognition, 45, 151-167.

Shah, C., & Kitzie, V. (2012). Social Q&A and virtual reference—comparing apples and

oranges with the help of experts and users. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 63, 2020–2036.

Singer, L.M., & Alexander, P.A. (2017). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading

digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. Journal of Experimental

Education, 85, 155-172.

Slavin, R.E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional

reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-11.

Snow, .E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about

science. Science, 328, 450-452.

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D.M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive

consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333, 776–778.

 41

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, 93-116.

Stahl, S.A., Hynd, C.R., Britton, B.K., McNish, M.M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens

when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research

Quarterly, 31, 430-456.

Strømsø, H.I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text

comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425-

445.

Strømsø, H.I., & Bråten, I., & Britt, M.A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate

change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension.

Learning and Instruction, 18, 513-527.

Strømsø, H.I., Bråten, I., Britt, M.A., & Ferguson, L.E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among

students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176-203.

Strømsø, H.I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M.S. (2003). Students’ strategic use of multiple

sources during expository text reading. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 113-147.

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, 513-527.

Trevors, G., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning

processes vary as a function of epistemic beliefs and contexts: Mixed method evidence

from eye tracking and concurrent and retrospective reports. Learning and Instruction,

42, 31-46.

Tveit, Å.K., & Mangen, A. (2014). A joker in the class: Teenage readers' attitudes and
 42

preferences to reading on different devices. Library & Information Science Research,

36, 179-184.

van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and

knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.

van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2015). Building coherence in web-based and other non-

traditional reading environments: Cognitive opportunities and challenges. In R.J.

Spiro, M. DeSchryver, M.S. Hagerman, P.M. Morsink, & P. Thompson (Eds.),

Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and

practices (pp. 104-114). New York: Routledge.

VanSledright, B., & Maggioni, L. (2016). Epistemic cognition in history. In J.A. Greene,

W.A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 128-146).

New York: Routledge.

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent

semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-23.

Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerick, J.

(2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry

tasks. American Educational Research Association Journal, 46, 1060-1106.

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, 301–311.

Wineburg, 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.

Winter, S., & Krämer, N.C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source
 43

cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog

posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80-96

Wolfe, M.B.W., & Goldman, S.R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and

reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.