Inaccurate Ideas, Problematic Sources, and Misinformed Expectations

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Inaccurate Ideas, Problematic Sources, and Misinformed Expectations

Suggestions and Solutions for Helping People Learn in a Post-Truth World

How do we help people learn about important issues, realizing that the everyday tools and practices used to look for information can expose people to biased interpretations, underinformed arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and so-called “fake news”?  Discourse Processes has a rich history of publishing papers directly related to these issues.  Projects focused on human communication, reading comprehension, and multimedia experiences that have appeared in the journal are informative for addressing concerns associated with living in a “post-truth world.”  This includes projects that outline challenges for learning, and studies that describe effective toolsets and interventions that can enhance comprehension activities. 
This curated, virtual special issue of Discourse Processes presents recent publications that highlight the rich history of the journal as an outlet for thought-provoking and impactful work on these issues.  We hope you enjoy reading these articles, and encourage your perusal of the journal and the array of multidisciplinary projects published in it examining discourse processes, products, contexts, and experiences. 
Discourse Processes is the official journal of The Society for Text & Discourse. Learn more about the society and explore membership options here, http://www.societyfortextanddiscourse.org/

These articles will be available to read for free until 30 November 2019.
Article TitleAuthor(s)VolumeIssueYear
Effects of a Sourcing Prompt and Conflicts in Reading Materials on Elementary Students’ Use of Source InformationJohanna Paul, Marc Stadtler & Rainer Bromme5622019
Individual Differences in Revising (and Maintaining) Accurate and Inaccurate Beliefs About Childhood VaccinationsErica D. Kessler, Jason L.G. Braasch & Carolanne M. Kardash565-62019
Readers’ Processing and Use of Source Information as a Function of Its Usefulness to Explain Conflicting Scientific ClaimsSteffen Gottschling, Yvonne Kammerer & Peter Gerjets565-62019
Challenges in Processes of Validation and ComprehensionMurray Singer565-62019
Research is Tentative, but That’s Okay: Overcoming Misconceptions about Scientific Tentativeness through Refutation TextsDanny Flemming, Joachim Kimmerle, Ulrike Cress & Gale M. Sinatra2019
Trust But Verify: Examining the Association Between Students' Sourcing Behaviors and Ratings of Text TrustworthinessAlexandra List, Patricia A. Alexander & Lori A. Stephens5422017
Being Sad Is Not Always Bad: The Influence of Affect on Expository Text ComprehensionCaitlin Mills, Jennifer Wu & Sidney D’Mello5622019
Expectations on Hierarchical Scales of Discourse: Multifractality Predicts Both Short- and Long-Range Effects of Violating Gender Expectations in Text ReadingChase R. Booth, Hannah L. Brown, Elizabeth G. Eason, Sebastian Wallot & Damian G. Kelty-Stephen5512018
Thinking About Global Warming: Effect of Policy-Related Documents and Prompts on Learning About Causes of Climate ChangeDylan Blaum, Thomas D. Griffin, Jennifer Wiley & M. Anne Britt5442017
Readers' Selective Recall of Source Features as a Function of Claim Discrepancy and Task DemandsGaston Saux, Christine Ros, M. Anne Britt, Marc Stadtler, Debora I. Burin & Jean-François Rouet555-62018
Stay up to date with @RoutledgeLing
Follow Us on Twitter

Latest Tweets