Skip to main content
Log in

Commentary: Advances in research on sourcing—source credibility and reliable processes for producing knowledge claims

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In our commentary on this excellent set of articles on Sourcing in the Reading Process, we endeavor to synthesize the findings from the seven articles and discuss future research. We discuss significant contributions related to source memory, source evaluation, use of sources in action and belief, integration of information from multiple sources, and instruction in sourcing. Next we discuss several issues for future research raised by these articles, including expert sourcing, embedded sources, epistemic justice, and explanations of disagreement. Finally, we argue that the credibility of sources and their claims is determined by the reliability of the processes used by the sources to produce their claims. Our focus on the reliability of processes used by sources has implications for understanding sourcing processes, for evaluating normative claims about which sources are most reliable, for explaining how people evaluate sources, and for developing instruction on sourcing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barzilai, S., Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2015). How can researchers arrive at such different conclusions? Understanding conflicts across topics. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.

  • Bishop, M. A., & Trout, J. D. (2005). Epistemology and the psychology of human judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L., McCabe, R. M., & Daniel, F. (2016). Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9609-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L., Rouet, J. F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Andreassen, R. (2016). Sourcing in professional education: Do text factors make any difference? Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9611-y

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Epistemic cognition and philosophy: Developing a new framework for epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 460–478). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 425–453). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Duncan, R. G., & Rinehart, R. W. (in press). Epistemic design: Design to promote transferable epistemic growth in the PRACCIS project. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.). Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice. Singapore: Routledge.

  • Collins, H. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now?. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. C., & Goldman, A. I. (1994). Accuracy in journalism: An economic approach. In F. F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 189–215). Lanham, MD: Rowman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohn, N. B. (2016). Explaining the significance of participationist approaches for understanding students’ knowledge acquisition. Educational Psychologist, 51, 188–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 499–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 255–269.

  • Ioannidis, J. (2011). Meta-research: The art of getting it wrong. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E. (2012). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 818–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, L. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47, 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J., 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.

  • Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078–2091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50, 234–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostenson, J. (2014). Reconsidering the checklist in teaching internet source evaluation. Libraries and the Academy, 14(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perks, R. (2004). Re-writing the rules: The Bush administration’s assault on the environment. Retrieved from Natural Resources Defense Council website: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/rr2004.pdf

  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M.T.

  • 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. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9625-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmerón, L., Gómez, M., & Fajardo, I. (2016). How students with intellectual disabilities evaluate recommendations from internet forums. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9621-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2007). Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science, 40, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2015). Making medical knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737.

    Article  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), 705–729. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9623-2

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2016). How source information shapes lay interpretations of science conflicts: Interplay between sourcing, conflict explanation, source evaluation, and claim evaluation. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8

    Google Scholar 

  • von der Mühlen, S., Richter, T., Schmid, S., Schmidt, E. M., & Berthold, K. (2015). The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: A student–scientist comparison. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0

  • Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the special issue editors for their very helpful comments. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1008634. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clark A. Chinn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chinn, C.A., Rinehart, R.W. Commentary: Advances in research on sourcing—source credibility and reliable processes for producing knowledge claims. Read Writ 29, 1701–1717 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9675-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9675-3

Keywords

Navigation