Dokument-ID Dokumenttyp Verfasser/Autoren Herausgeber Haupttitel Abstract Auflage Verlagsort Verlag Erscheinungsjahr Seitenzahl Schriftenreihe Titel Schriftenreihe Bandzahl ISBN Quelle der Hochschulschrift Konferenzname Quelle:Titel Quelle:Jahrgang Quelle:Heftnummer Quelle:Erste Seite Quelle:Letzte Seite URN DOI Abteilungen OPUS4-16734 Dissertation von der Mühlen, Sarah Fostering Students' Epistemic Competences when Dealing with Scientific Literature The abilities to comprehend and critically evaluate scientific texts and the various arguments stated in these texts are an important aspect of scientific literacy, but these competences are usually not formally taught to students. Previous research indicates that, although undergraduate students evaluate the claims and evidence they find in scientific documents to some extent, these evaluations usually fail to meet normative standards. In addition, students' use of source information for evaluation is often insufficient. The rise of the internet and the increased accessibility of information have yielded some additional challenges that highlight the importance of adequate training and instruction.The aim of the present work was to further examine introductory students' competences to systematically and heuristically evaluate scientific information, to identify relevant strategies that are involved in a successful evaluation, and to use this knowledge to design appropriate interventions for fostering epistemic competences in university students.To this end, a number of computer-based studies, including both quantitative and qualitative data as well as experimental designs, were developed. The first two studies were designed to specify educational needs and to reveal helpful processing strategies that are required in different tasks and situations. Two expert-novice comparisons were developed, whereby the performance of German students of psychology (novices) was compared to the performance of scientists from the domain of psychology (experts) in a number of different tasks, such as systematic plausibility evaluations of informal arguments (Study 1) or heuristic evaluations of the credibility of multiple scientific documents (Study 2). A think-aloud procedure was used to identify specific strategies that were applied in both groups during task completion, and that possibly mediated performance differences between students and scientists. In addition, relationships between different strategies and between strategy use and relevant conceptual knowledge was examined. Based on the results of the expert-novice comparisons, an intervention study, consisting of two training experiments, was constructed to foster some competences that proved to be particularly deficient in the comparisons (Study 3). Study 1 examined introductory students' abilities to accurately judge the plausibility of informal arguments according to normative standards, to recognise common argumentation fallacies, and to identify different structural components of arguments. The results from Study 1 indicate that many students, compared to scientists, lack relevant knowledge about the structure of arguments, and that normatively accurate evaluations of their plausibility seem to be challenging in this group. Often, common argumentation fallacies were not identified correctly. Importantly, these deficits were partly mediated by differences in strategy use: It was especially difficult for students to pay sufficient attention to the relationship between argument components when forming their judgements. Moreover, they frequently relied on their intuition or opinion as a criterion for evaluation, whereas scientists predominantly determined quality of arguments based on their internal consistency. In addition to students' evaluation of the plausibility of informal arguments, Study 2 examined introductory students' competences to evaluate the credibility of multiple scientific texts, and to use source characteristics for evaluation. The results show that students struggled not only to judge the plausibility of arguments correctly, but also to heuristically judge the credibility of science texts, and these deficits were fully mediated by their insufficient use of source information. In contrast, scientists were able to apply different strategies in a flexible manner. When the conditions for evaluation did not allow systematic processing (i.e. time limit), they primarily used source characteristics for their evaluations. However, when systematic evaluations were possible (i.e. no time limit), they used more sophisticated normative criteria for their evaluations, such as paying attention to the internal consistency of arguments (cf. Study 1). Results also showed that students, in contrast to experts, lacked relevant knowledge about different publication types, and this was related to their ability to correctly determine document credibility. The results from the expert-novice comparisons also suggest that the competences assessed in both tasks might develop as a result of a more fundamental form of scientific literacy and discipline expertise. Performances in all tasks were positively related. On the basis of these results, two training experiments were developed that aimed at fostering university students' competences to understand and evaluate informal arguments (Study 3). Experiment 1 describes an intervention approach in which students were familiarised with the formal structure of arguments based on Toulmin's (1958) argumentation model. The performance of the experimental group to identify the structural components of this model was compared to the performance of a control group in which speed reading skills were practiced, using a pre-post-follow-up design. Results show that the training was successful for improving the comprehension of more complex arguments and relational aspects between key components in the posttest, compared to the control group. Moreover, an interaction effect was found with study performance. High achieving students with above average grades profited the most from the training intervention. Experiment 2 showed that training in plausibility, normative criteria of argument evaluation, and argumentation fallacies improved students' abilities to evaluate the plausibility of arguments and, in addition, their competences to recognise structural components of arguments, compared to a speed-reading control group. These results have important implications for education and practice, which will be discussed in detail in this dissertation. 2018 urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-167343 Institut für Psychologie