Abstract
The new Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (ACRL, 2016) highlights the ability to synthesize ideas from multiple sources of information as one of the key knowledge practices. There is little generalizable empirical research based on cognitive science principles to guide information literacy instruction practice. The present study examined the effectiveness of elaborative interrogation instructional strategy on integration and transformation of ideas from multiple sources of information. 86 participants took part in the study via Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. The experiment involved reading five texts on the topic of climate change and responding to embedded elaborative interrogation prompts (treatment groups only), and writing a synthesis paragraph on the topic. Two one-way ANCOVAs were employed to test the hypotheses which indicated that elaborative interrogation prompts did not significantly improve performance on transformation and integration measures. This study contributes to the growing body of literature addressing information literacy instruction based on the new Framework and provides a promising long-term cross-disciplinary research partnership in terms of linking evidencebased guidance for instruction based on cognitive science principles to information literacy knowledge practices in the new Framework.
References
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/Framework_ILHE.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. doi:10.1177/174569161039398010.1177/1745691610393980Search in Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-710.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7Search in Google Scholar
Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1-53. doi:10.1080/0163853980954501910.1080/01638539809545019Search in Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. doi:10.1177/152910061245326610.1177/1529100612453266Search in 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(3), 157-173. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.00210.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002Search in Google Scholar
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. doi:10.1002/RRQ.02710.1002/RRQ.027Search in Google Scholar
Hannon, B. (2012). Differential-associative processing or example elaboration: Which strategy is best for learning the definitions of related and unrelated concepts? Learning and Instruction, 22(5), 299-310. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.00510.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.005Search in Google Scholar
King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(4), 331–346. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050404.10.1002/acp.2350050404Search in Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 508.10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.508Search in Google Scholar
Oakleaf, M. (2008). Dangers and opportunities: a conceptual map of information literacy assessment approaches. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(3), 233-253. doi:10.1353/pla.0.001110.1353/pla.0.0011Search in Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension–Fostering and comprehension–Monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1Search in Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5).10.1017/S1930297500002205Search in Google Scholar
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.Search in Google Scholar
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 representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49-75. doi:10.1111/tops.1218710.1111/tops.12187Search in Google Scholar
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Psychology Press.Search in Google 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), 478-493.10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478Search in Google Scholar
Seifert, T. L. (1994). Enhancing memory for main ideas using elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(3), 360-366. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.102610.1006/ceps.1994.1026Search in 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(3), 192-204. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.00110.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Whitley, B. J., Kite, M. E., & Adams, H. L. (2013). Principles of research in behavioral science. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
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(2), 301.10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301Search in Google Scholar
Willoughby, T., & Wood, E. (1994). Elaborative interrogation examined at encoding and retrieval. Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 139-149. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90008-610.1016/0959-4752(94)90008-6Search in Google Scholar
Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact on or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 279-279. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.86.2.27910.1037//0022-0663.86.2.279Search in Google Scholar
Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/356811110.1207/s1532690xci2304_2Search in Google Scholar
Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 513-524. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.51310.1037/0022-0663.82.3.513Search in Google Scholar
Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115-124.10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.115Search in Google Scholar
Woloshyn, V. E., & Stockley, D. B. (1995). Helping students acquire belief-inconsistent and belief-consistent science facts: Comparisons between individual and dyad study using elaborative interrogation, self-selected study and repetitiousreading. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 75-8. doi:10.1002/acp.235009010Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Omer Farooq, published by De Gruyter Open
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
