Albrecht, J. E. & O’brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1061.Google Scholar

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007Google Scholar

Banas, S. & Sanchez, C. A. (2012). Working memory capacity and learning underlying conceptual relationships across multiple documents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 594–600.Google Scholar

Barzilai, S. & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.Google Scholar

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(6), 737.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3–23.Google Scholar

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003Google Scholar

Braasch, J. L., McCabe, R. M., & Daniel, F. (2016). Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Reading and Writing, 29(8), 1571–1598.Google Scholar

Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 40, 450–465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011–0160-6.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. (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.Google Scholar

Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31.Google Scholar

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, 635–657.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., Britt, M. A., & 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.Google Scholar

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., & Salmerón, L. (2010). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192.Google Scholar

Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Students’ evaluation of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213.Google Scholar

Britt, M. A. & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.Google Scholar

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. -F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In Lawson, M.J. and Kirby, J.R. (Eds.), Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes, (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Burton, C. & Daneman, M. (2007). Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Psychology, 28(2), 163–186.Google Scholar

De Pereyra, G., Britt, M. A., Braasch, J. L. G, & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Reader’s memory for information sources in simple news stories: Effects of text and task features. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 187–204.Google Scholar

Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 220–231.Google Scholar

Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157–173.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69–83.Google Scholar

Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., 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, 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027Google Scholar

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The role of CLEAR thinking in learning science from multiple-document inquiry tasks. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5, 63–78.Google Scholar

Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., & 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.Google Scholar

Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.Google Scholar

Jurica, P. J. & Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Monitoring item and source information: Evidence for a negative generation effect in source memory. Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 648–656.Google Scholar

Kammerer, Y., Amann, D., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163.Google Scholar

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

Kintsch, W., & Young, S. R. (1984). Selective recall of decision-relevant information from texts. Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 112–117.Google Scholar

Kopp, K. (2013). Selecting and using information from multiple documents for argumentation. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1459216967.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lelivrescolaire (2017). Habiter une métroploe d’un pays emergent: Mumbai (2/2) [to live in the capital of an emerging country: Mumbai (2/2)]. https://fr.calameo.com/read/000596729dc5e7968d39cGoogle Scholar

Linderholm, T., Therriault, D. J., & Kwon, H. (2014). Multiple science text processing: Building comprehension skills for college student readers. Reading Psychology, 35(4), 332–356.Google Scholar

Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J.G.L., 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.Google Scholar

Maggioni, L. & Fox, E. (2009). Adolescents’ reading of multiple history texts: An interdisciplinary investigation of historical thinking, intertextual reading, and domain-specific epistemic beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013). Text belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151–175.Google Scholar

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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001Google Scholar

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 and Education, 76, 143–157.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. S., & 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.Google Scholar

McNamara, D.S., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171.Google Scholar

Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 488–496.Google Scholar

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492.Google Scholar

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R. & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239–1252.Google Scholar

Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37.Google Scholar

Pérez, A., Potocki, A., Stadtler, M., Macedo-Rouet, M., Paul, J., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J-F. (2018). Fostering Teenagers’ Assessment of Information Reliability: Effects of a Classroom Intervention focused on Critical Source Dimensions. Learning and Instruction, 58, 53–64.Google Scholar

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In van Oostendorp, H. & Goldman, S. (eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (2014). Learning from multiple documents. In Mayer, R.E. (ed.) Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 813–841). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.039Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading: Contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015Google Scholar

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), 478–493.Google Scholar

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, 85–106.Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016–9625-0Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F., Levonen, J., Dillon, A. P. and Spiro, R. J. (eds.) (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23585Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19, 272–286.Google Scholar

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210.Google Scholar

Stadtler, M., Paul, J., Globoschütz, S., & Bromme, R. (2015). Watch out! – An instruction raising students’ epistemic vigilance augments their sourcing activities. In: Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D., & Maglio, P. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2278–2283). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130–150.Google Scholar

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29(4), 705.Google Scholar

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, 4, 430–456.Google Scholar

Strømsø, H. I. & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425–445.Google Scholar

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, 20,192–204.Google Scholar

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. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769994Google Scholar

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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.11.001.Google Scholar

Trabasso, T. & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.Google Scholar

Turner, K. & Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base. Technical report No. 63, University of Colorado.Google Scholar

van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

VanSledright, B. A. & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 239–265.Google Scholar

Voss, J.-F. & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding while writing essays in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 255–265.Google Scholar

Walczyk, J. J., Kelly, K. E., Meche, S. D., & Braud, H. (1999). Time limitations enhance reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 156–165.Google Scholar

Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behavior while searching the Internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125–146.Google Scholar

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183Google Scholar

Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of “playing historian” on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63–72.Google Scholar

Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. J. & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101–112. 10.1007/BF02894421Google Scholar

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.Google Scholar

Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In Leinhardt, G., Beck, I. & Stainton, C. (eds.) Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wolfe, M. B. & Griffin, T. D. (2017). Beliefs and discourse processing. In Schober, M. F., Rapp, D. N., & Britt, M. A. (eds.), Handbook of discourse processes, 2nd edn (pp. 295–314). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar