Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences

By David N. Rapp, Jason L. G. Braasch. 2014

269 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35ad83e30fbd649512888f71ddbb044d68ca8426

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Moving Beyond Reflection: Reflexivity and Epistemic Cognition in Teaching and Teacher Education (2017, methodology): “Its current version, the AIR model, focuses specifically on epistemic Aims, Ideals and Reliable processes to better understand and explain the nature of knowledge and processes of knowing (Chinn et al., 2014).”
Cognitive Affective Engagement Model of Multiple Source Use (2017, background): “Indeed, the importance of source evaluation for multiple text integration has been emphasized throughout much of the literature (Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012; Britt & Aglinskas, 2002; Stadtler & Bromme, 2014) and is reflected in the CAEM through the behavioral dispositions dimension.”
Reading Comprehension (2016, background): “Although high levels of accurate knowledge can facilitate reading comprehension, inaccurate knowledge can severely disrupt reading comprehension (Kendeou & O’Brien, 2015; Rapp & Braasch, 2014).”
Education for a “Post-Truth” World: New Directions for Research and Practice (2020, methodology): “Our approach builds on a recent model of epistemic cognition (or epistemic thinking), the AIR model (Chinn et al., 2014).”
The Multidimensional Knowledge in Text Comprehension framework (2021, background): “Readers tend to be quite susceptible to inaccurate information and often lack the critical reasoning skills to notice or correct potential inaccuracies during encoding (Marsh et al., 2003; Rapp, 2016; Rapp & Braasch, 2014; Singer, 2013).”
Understanding and Promoting Thinking About Knowledge (2016, background): “Finally, Chinn and colleagues (Chinn et al., 2011; Chinn et al., 2014; Chinn & Rinehart, 2016) have argued that contemporary work in philosophical epistemology has a number of implications for models of epistemic cognition, including that (a) epistemic cognition is fundamentally a social…”
Toward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use (2019, background): “Moreover, evaluations facilitate the reconciliation of conflicts across texts by helping students to determine who to believe, when texts conflict (Braasch & Bråten, 2017; Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012; Stadtler & Bromme, 2014).”
Changing Teachers' Epistemic Cognition: A New Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Reflexivity (2017, methodology): “It draws specifically on Chinn and colleagues’ AIR model (Chinn et al., 2011; Chinn et al., 2014) to relate such epistemic cognition to reflexivity in specific teaching and learning contexts.”
Disciplinary Literacies and Learning to Read for Understanding: A Conceptual Framework for Disciplinary Literacy (2016, unknown): “…written essays (Bra ten, Strømsø, & Britt, 2009; Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Graesser, & Brodowinska, 2012; Strømsø, Bra ten, & Britt, 2010; Wiley et al., 2009) and allow contradictory information to coexist in a global representation (Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012; Stadtler & Bromme 2014).”