Erratum to: Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies

We present an empirical investigation of a classroom training fostering vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science-based controversies. The training was specifically aimed at raising students’ awareness of the division of cognitive labor and the resulting ne...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Reading & writing 2016-10, Vol.29 (8), p.1699-1699
Main Authors: Stadtler, Marc, Scharrer, Lisa, Macedo-Rouet, Monica, Rouet, Jean-François, Bromme, Rainer
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cognitive science
Education
Erratum
Language and Literature
Linguistics
Literacy
Neurology
Psycholinguistics
Psychology
Reading Processes
Resistance (Psychology)
Social Sciences
Vocational Education
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 1699
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1699
container_title Reading & writing
container_volume 29
creator Stadtler, Marc
Scharrer, Lisa
Macedo-Rouet, Monica
Rouet, Jean-François
Bromme, Rainer
description We present an empirical investigation of a classroom training fostering vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science-based controversies. The training was specifically aimed at raising students’ awareness of the division of cognitive labor and the resulting need to take a source’s competence into account when deciding whom to trust. Data were collected from a training group and a waiting list control group in a pretest–posttest design. The results show that students benefitted from the training in terms of their inclination to agree with pertinent expert sources rather than low-pertinent experts and to refer to the source of information to justify their judgment. Source memory was not affected by the training.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11145-016-9679-z
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02372222v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4173695261</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c147z-3719d58736903d7f86eb4577e21b725d04e4a7c2c2eb1eac81e8f3e5d3aa1b513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1KxTAQhYMoeP15AHcBVy6qmaRpWnci_sEFN7oOaTrVyL2NJu0V78rX8PV8ElMr4sbZDEy-c4bMIeQA2DEwpk4iAOQyY1BkVaGqbL1BZiCVyFjF5CaZsYrzLFdKbZOdGJ8YY7zMxYysL0Iw_bCkvT-lN8vn4Feue6Arb03vfGcWNPZDg10fP98_qPVddA2G7zfqWxr9ECxS17U-LKfp6yN2tEHrmtHI1H7oabQOu8QlfZ82YIgO4x7Zas0i4v5P3yX3lxd359fZ_Pbq5vxsnlnI1ToTCqpGlkoUFRONassC61wqhRxqxWXDcsyNstxyrAGNLQHLVqBshDFQSxC75GjyfTQL_Rzc0oQ37Y3T12dzPc4YF4qnWo3s4cSmQ7wMGHv9lH6YzhA1lKDyqpCyShRMlA0-xoDtry0wPcahpzh0ikOPceh10vBJExPbPWD44_yv6AumeJEH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1817496559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Erratum to: Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies</title><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Springer Link</source><source>Linguistics Collection</source><source>ProQuest One Literature</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><source>Education Collection</source><creator>Stadtler, Marc ; Scharrer, Lisa ; Macedo-Rouet, Monica ; Rouet, Jean-François ; Bromme, Rainer</creator><creatorcontrib>Stadtler, Marc ; Scharrer, Lisa ; Macedo-Rouet, Monica ; Rouet, Jean-François ; Bromme, Rainer</creatorcontrib><description>We present an empirical investigation of a classroom training fostering vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science-based controversies. The training was specifically aimed at raising students’ awareness of the division of cognitive labor and the resulting need to take a source’s competence into account when deciding whom to trust. Data were collected from a training group and a waiting list control group in a pretest–posttest design. The results show that students benefitted from the training in terms of their inclination to agree with pertinent expert sources rather than low-pertinent experts and to refer to the source of information to justify their judgment. Source memory was not affected by the training.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0922-4777</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11145-016-9679-z</identifier><identifier>CODEN: REWRE8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Cognitive science ; Education ; Erratum ; Language and Literature ; Linguistics ; Literacy ; Neurology ; Psycholinguistics ; Psychology ; Reading Processes ; Resistance (Psychology) ; Social Sciences ; Vocational Education</subject><ispartof>Reading &amp; writing, 2016-10, Vol.29 (8), p.1699-1699</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-0368-7691 ; 0000-0003-1152-5067 ; 0000-0002-2948-9837</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1817496559/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1817496559?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,12851,21378,21382,21394,27924,27925,31269,33611,33877,33911,43733,43880,43896,62661,62662,62677,74196,74221,74397,74413</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-02372222$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stadtler, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scharrer, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macedo-Rouet, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rouet, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bromme, Rainer</creatorcontrib><title>Erratum to: Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies</title><title>Reading &amp; writing</title><addtitle>Read Writ</addtitle><description>We present an empirical investigation of a classroom training fostering vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science-based controversies. The training was specifically aimed at raising students’ awareness of the division of cognitive labor and the resulting need to take a source’s competence into account when deciding whom to trust. Data were collected from a training group and a waiting list control group in a pretest–posttest design. The results show that students benefitted from the training in terms of their inclination to agree with pertinent expert sources rather than low-pertinent experts and to refer to the source of information to justify their judgment. Source memory was not affected by the training.</description><subject>Cognitive science</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Erratum</subject><subject>Language and Literature</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Psycholinguistics</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Resistance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Vocational Education</subject><issn>0922-4777</issn><issn>1573-0905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>CPGLG</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1KxTAQhYMoeP15AHcBVy6qmaRpWnci_sEFN7oOaTrVyL2NJu0V78rX8PV8ElMr4sbZDEy-c4bMIeQA2DEwpk4iAOQyY1BkVaGqbL1BZiCVyFjF5CaZsYrzLFdKbZOdGJ8YY7zMxYysL0Iw_bCkvT-lN8vn4Feue6Arb03vfGcWNPZDg10fP98_qPVddA2G7zfqWxr9ECxS17U-LKfp6yN2tEHrmtHI1H7oabQOu8QlfZ82YIgO4x7Zas0i4v5P3yX3lxd359fZ_Pbq5vxsnlnI1ToTCqpGlkoUFRONassC61wqhRxqxWXDcsyNstxyrAGNLQHLVqBshDFQSxC75GjyfTQL_Rzc0oQ37Y3T12dzPc4YF4qnWo3s4cSmQ7wMGHv9lH6YzhA1lKDyqpCyShRMlA0-xoDtry0wPcahpzh0ikOPceh10vBJExPbPWD44_yv6AumeJEH</recordid><startdate>20161001</startdate><enddate>20161001</enddate><creator>Stadtler, Marc</creator><creator>Scharrer, Lisa</creator><creator>Macedo-Rouet, Monica</creator><creator>Rouet, Jean-François</creator><creator>Bromme, Rainer</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer Verlag</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0368-7691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1152-5067</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2948-9837</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20161001</creationdate><title>Erratum to: Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies</title><author>Stadtler, Marc ; Scharrer, Lisa ; Macedo-Rouet, Monica ; Rouet, Jean-François ; Bromme, Rainer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c147z-3719d58736903d7f86eb4577e21b725d04e4a7c2c2eb1eac81e8f3e5d3aa1b513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Cognitive science</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Erratum</topic><topic>Language and Literature</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Psycholinguistics</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Resistance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Vocational Education</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stadtler, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scharrer, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macedo-Rouet, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rouet, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bromme, Rainer</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>One Literature (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Education Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Reading &amp; writing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stadtler, Marc</au><au>Scharrer, Lisa</au><au>Macedo-Rouet, Monica</au><au>Rouet, Jean-François</au><au>Bromme, Rainer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Erratum to: Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies</atitle><jtitle>Reading &amp; writing</jtitle><stitle>Read Writ</stitle><date>2016-10-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1699</spage><epage>1699</epage><pages>1699-1699</pages><issn>0922-4777</issn><eissn>1573-0905</eissn><coden>REWRE8</coden><abstract>We present an empirical investigation of a classroom training fostering vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science-based controversies. The training was specifically aimed at raising students’ awareness of the division of cognitive labor and the resulting need to take a source’s competence into account when deciding whom to trust. Data were collected from a training group and a waiting list control group in a pretest–posttest design. The results show that students benefitted from the training in terms of their inclination to agree with pertinent expert sources rather than low-pertinent experts and to refer to the source of information to justify their judgment. Source memory was not affected by the training.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11145-016-9679-z</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0368-7691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1152-5067</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2948-9837</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0922-4777
ispartof Reading & writing, 2016-10, Vol.29 (8), p.1699-1699
issn 0922-4777
1573-0905
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02372222v1
source Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Springer Link; Linguistics Collection; ProQuest One Literature; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA); Education Collection
subjects Cognitive science
Education
Erratum
Language and Literature
Linguistics
Literacy
Neurology
Psycholinguistics
Psychology
Reading Processes
Resistance (Psychology)
Social Sciences
Vocational Education
title Erratum to: Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T12%3A47%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Erratum%20to:%20Improving%20vocational%20students%E2%80%99%20consideration%20of%20source%20information%20when%20deciding%20about%20science%20controversies&rft.jtitle=Reading%20&%20writing&rft.au=Stadtler,%20Marc&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1699&rft.epage=1699&rft.pages=1699-1699&rft.issn=0922-4777&rft.eissn=1573-0905&rft.coden=REWRE8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11145-016-9679-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E4173695261%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c147z-3719d58736903d7f86eb4577e21b725d04e4a7c2c2eb1eac81e8f3e5d3aa1b513%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1817496559&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true