From Integrating to Learning: Insights from Spanish L2 Multiple Documents Selection in Reading Tasks
Keywords:Comprehension, second language instruction, document selection, integrated education, Spanish
Previous literature has focused on investigating the use of sources in the classroom and how much they contribute to building a coherent mental representation of the texts. These studies explain how integration from multiple document sources occurs; however, their results are limited to the first language and do not inform about the types of these sources or how they are used. In this sense, the objective of this case study is to identify the types of sources used in four courses of a student exchange program in a Chilean University. The data was collected through focus groups with sixty students and in-depth interviews with four professors to determine in what sense the type of document selected could contribute to the learning process. A content analysis was carried out using Nvivo 12 to report on the pedagogical implications of using these sources in a Spanish L2 teaching setting.
Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2013). Teachers’ source evaluation self‐efficacy predicts their use of relevant source features when evaluating the trustworthiness of web sources on special education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01366.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
Bloome, D., Kim, M., Hong, H., & Brady, J. (2018). Multiple source use when reading and writing in literature and language arts in classroom contexts. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 254–266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496-15
Braasch, J. L., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. M (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students’ use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.1.c
Brand‐Gruwel, S., Kammerer, Y., Van Meeuwen, L., & Van Gog, T. (2017). Source evaluation of domain experts and novices during Web search. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12162
Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7
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(3), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x
Bråten, I., McCrudden, M. T., Stang Lund, E., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Task‐oriented learning with multiple documents: Effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on document selection, processing, and use. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.197
Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. Schober, D. Rapp, & M. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (pp. 141–166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687384-10
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). 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(6), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9091-4
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). Information Age.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139048224.017
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2020). Multiple document comprehension. In L. Zhang (Ed.), The oxford encyclopedia of educational psychology (pp.10–25). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.867
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. (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). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203131268
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Durik, A. (2018). Representations and processes in multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M.T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 17–33). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496-2
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
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. 317–352). Information Age.
Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381. http://wiley.lsri.uic.edu/personal/jwiley/rrq.pdf
Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. Shanahan, C., & Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
Guerrini, M. (2009). CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field, 1, 74–84.
Guthrie, J. T., Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (2018). Promoting multiple-text comprehension through motivation in the classroom. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 382–400). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496-22
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Sage Publications.
Karimi, M. N. (2018a). The mediated/unmediated contributions of language proficiency and prior knowledge to L2 multiple-texts comprehension: A structural equation modelling analysis. Applied Linguistics, 39(6), 912–932. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw059
Karimi, M. N. (2018b). Prior topical knowledge and L2 proficiency as determinants of strategic processing in English for Academic Purposes multi-texts comprehension. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1177058
Karimi, M. N., & Alibakhshi, G. (2014). EFL learners’ text processing strategies across comprehension vs. integration reading task conditions. System, 46, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.013
Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3(2), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0302_1
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(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1174654
List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (58), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003
Narvaez, D., Van Den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 488.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Maxwell, J. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
McCrudden, M. T. (2018). Text relevance and multiple‐source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M.T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 168–183). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational psychology review, 19(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000057
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse processes, 22(3), 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Milne, E. D., Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). CLIL across contexts: A scaffolding framework for CLIL teacher education. Current Research on CLIL, 19(3), 12–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269464750_CLIL_across_contexts_A_scaffolding_framework_for_CLIL_teacher_education
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (2012). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. Van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representation during reading (pp. 99–122). Erlbaum.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
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). IAP Information Age Publishing.
Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2014). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. (pp. 813–841). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.039
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
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(3), 478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2068
Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_3
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018a). Using eye-tracking to assess sourcing during multiple document reading: A critical analysis. Frontline Learning Research, 6(3), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.368
Salmerón, L., Gil, L., & Bråten, I. (2018b). Effects of reading real versus print-out versions of multiple documents on students’ sourcing and integrated understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (52), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.002
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & Van den Broek, P. (2018c). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 91–120). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal
Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Magliano, J. P. (2011). Text relevance and learning from text. Information Age Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_354
Sendur, K. A., van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2021). Undergraduate L2 students’ performance when evaluating historical sources for reliability. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.08.004
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11424071
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(1–2), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535
Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (2000). Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives. New York University Press.
Stenseth, T., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). To read or not to read: A qualitative study of students’ justifications for document selection in task-oriented reading. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(5), 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1434828
Strømsø, H. (2017). Multiple models of multiple-text comprehension: A commentary. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1320557
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, 20(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001
Sylvén, L. K. (2019). Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922425
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
Van Meter, P., List, A., Lombardi, D., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429443961
Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2013). The influence of sources in the reading of mathematical text: A reply to Shanahan, Shanahan, and Misischia. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12469968
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
This journal and its papers are published with the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). You are free to share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format if you: give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; don’t use our material for commercial purposes; don’t remix, transform, or build upon the material.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).