The Role of CLEAR Thinking in Learning Science from Multiple-Document Inquiry Tasks


Thomas D. GRIFFIN, Jennifer WILEY , M. Anne BRITT, Carlos R. SALAS


Abstract

The main goal for the current study was to investigate whether individual differences in domain-general thinking dispositions might affect learning from multiple-document inquiry tasks in science. Middle school students were given a set of documents and were tasked with understanding how and why recent patterns in global temperature might be different from what has been observed in the past from those documents. Understanding was assessed with two measures: an essay task and an inference verification task. Domain-general thinking dispositions were assessed with a Commitment to Logic, Evidence, and Reasoning (CLEAR) thinking scale. The measures of understanding were uniquely predicted by both reading skills and CLEAR thinking scores, and these effects were not attributable to prior knowledge or interest. The results suggest independent roles for thinking dispositions and reading ability when students read to learn from multiple-document inquiry tasks in science.


Keywords

Thinking Dispositions, Learning From Text, Climate Change, Earth Science, Multiple-Document Inquiry Tasks.

Paper Details

Paper Details
Topic EU Education Programs
Pages 63 - 78
Issue IEJEE, Volume 5, Issue 1, Special Issue Learning and Instruction in the Natural Sciences
Date of acceptance 01 October 2012
Read (times) 486
Downloaded (times) 225

Author(s) Details

Thomas D. GRIFFIN

University of Illinois at Chicago, United States


Jennifer WILEY

University of Illinois at Chicago, United States


M. Anne BRITT

Northern Illinois University, United States


Carlos R. SALAS

University of Illinois at Chicago, United States


References

Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bennington, J. B. (2009). The Carbon Cycle and Climate Change. Cengage Learning.

Bråten, I., Britt, M.A., Strømsø, H.I., & Rouet, J.F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48-70.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010). 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., & 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.

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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Britt, M.A., & Rouet, J-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M.J. Lawson & J.R. Kirby (Eds.), The Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Mental Structures. Cambridge University Press.

Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209-222.

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, J., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.

Goldman, S .R., Braasch, J. L .G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (in press). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly.

Griffin, T. D. (2008). Faith: serving emotional epistemic goals rather than evidence coherence. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, and K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2059-2064. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Griffin, T. D., & Ohlsson, S. (2001). Beliefs versus knowledge: A necessary distinction for explaining, predicting and assessing conceptual change 364-369 In J. D. Moore and K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 364-369. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103.

Hofer, B. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research. 45, 85-95.

Kintsch, W. (1994). Learning from text. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.

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

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.

Kokis, J., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 26-52.

Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online Information. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 67–90.

Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domainspecificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical questions in the development of a theoretical model. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.

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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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 Publishing.

Sá , W., Kelley, C., Ho, C., & Stanovich, K. E. (2005). Thinking about personal theories: individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1149-1161.

Sá, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497-510.

Sanchez, C., & Wiley, J. (2006) Effects of working memory capacity on learning from illustrated text. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344-355

Sanchez, C., & Wiley, J. (2009). To scroll or not to scroll: Interactions of text presentation and working memory capacity. Human Factors, 51, 730-738.

Sanchez, C. A., Wiley, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during internet research tasks. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.

Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.) (pp. 343-365), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342-357.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.

Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611.

Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387-398.

West, R. F. Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930-941.

Wiley, J., Ash, I.K., Sanchez, C.A., & Jaeger, A. (2011). Clarifying readers’ goals for learning from expository science texts. In M. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 353-374). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez. C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106.

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in meta-comprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408-428.

Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of "playing" historian on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63-72.

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.