Search

In writing argumentative syntheses from multiple and contradictory sources, students must contrast and integrate different perspectives on a topic or issue. This complex task of source-based argumentation has been shown to be effective for learning, but it has also been shown to be quite challenging. Because of the challenges, educational interventions have been developed to facilitate performance through such means as explicit instruction of strategies and students' engagement in collaborative writing. Whereas these interventions have been beneficial for many writers, some students continue to perform poorly. The present study builds on prior research into collaborative writing of source-based argumentative syntheses by focusing on these students who experience difficulty with this academic task. Undergraduate psychology students who had previously underperformed on the argumentative task were organized into 56 pairs to participate in one of four versions of an intervention program, which differed in terms of the extent of support provided. The most complete program included collaboration as well as explicit instruction in argumentative synthesis writing and in the collaboration process. Statistical analyses were carried out with two ANOVAs with planned comparisons as well as two mediation models. Results showed that the pairs of students who received this most complete program significantly improved the quality of their synthesis in two dimensions, argument identification and argument analysis. The quality of their performance exceeded the performance of students in the three other intervention programs. The combination of explicit instruction and practice in pairs had positive effects on argument identification; but, for argument integration, effectiveness could be attributed solely to the explicit instruction component of the intervention. The study contributes to prior research by showing how the components of an intervention can make differential contributions to its effectiveness for a particular group of students.

Scientific literacy can be promoted through oral and written argumentative practice. Collaborative discourse has proven effective in fostering conceptual understanding, especially when discussions are developed under deliberative goals. Likewise, writing tasks as argumentative syntheses stand out for its epistemic value and its contribution to constructive learning processes. However, there are no known educational interventions that have combined these two didactic activities to teach science. The objective of this research was to compare the impact of four intervention programs, based on deliberative dialogues and argumentative synthesis writing activities, on the learning of socio-scientific content. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction; Guide), while deliberative dialogues and argumentative syntheses were constant elements. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which participated 151 Spanish third grade secondary school students. Socio-scientific learning was evaluated through a content test made up of open questions. The results showed all students progressed in their socio-scientific knowledge. Instructional practices did not have a direct effect on content learning. However, we observed an indirect effect of explicit instruction on learning socio-scientific content, through learning of argumentative synthesis writing. Besides, we found a positive relation between progression in synthesis writing and knowledge acquisition.

Dialogical argumentation practice contributes positively to argumentative writing skills. Specifically, deliberative dialogues are effective in promoting argument and counterargument integration in students' essays. However, the potential of dialogic activities may be increased if they are combined with instructional practices. The primary objective of this research is to compare the impact of four intervention programs, aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction through video modelling--EI, or a Procedural Guideline--G), while Deliberative Dialogues--DD--were a constant element. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which 186 Spanish third grade secondary school students (aged 14-15) participated. We evaluated the quality of the syntheses by examining the level of argumentative coverage (the total number of arguments included in the synthesis) and the level of integration (the type and frequency of the argumentative strategies used in the syntheses). The results showed that the effectiveness of the instructional methods varies according to the synthesis quality indicator. Explicit instruction, in combination with deliberative dialogues, was especially helpful in improving the level of integration of syntheses. The procedural guideline, in combination with deliberative dialogues, contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments. The combination of these two elements did not favor the writing of synthesis as expected, probably due to the conditions in which the intervention was carried out. The findings of this study revealed that the coverage of arguments and integration processes are of different nature, follow different learning paths and require different instructional processes.

The demands of learning in the twenty-first century require being skilled in the use and comprehension of multiple documents. Some individual factors such as the metacognitive skill of theory of mind (ToM) are related to this ability. This study investigated the relationship between university students' ability to comprehend multiple documents, measured through an argumentative essay task, and their ToM. The participants were 84 undergraduates. We assessed their ToM (using the strange stories task) and their mental state talk (using a think-aloud protocol during the reading of multiple documents—MSTR—and through the content of their subsequent written essays—MSTW). The relation between students' ToM and their MSTW was mediated through MSTR. In addition, students' ToM was significantly associated with the quality of the essays, through MSTR, and the relation between MSTR and the argumentative quality was mediated through MSTW. MSTW was the only significant predictor of the quality of the essays. The involvement of ToM in multiple-document comprehension suggests, from an educational perspective, the possibility to support multiple-document comprehension by scaffolding mental state talk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metacognitive reading awareness, involving cognitive process control and reading strategies, is linked to better comprehension and performance, but its relationship with intertextual integration strategies and the quality of argumentative essays remains unexplored. This study aimed to investigate the role of metacognition in employing integration strategies when reading conflicting texts. 69 undergraduate students participated in an online reading-writing activity, where they wrote argumentative essays based on conflicting texts about red meat consumption. We examined the students' use of intertextual integration strategies (refutation, weighing, synthesizing) and assessed their metacognitive awareness through their reflections on these strategies. The quality of the argumentative essays served as a measure of multiple text comprehension. The results indicated a lack of metacognitive awareness regarding integration strategies, with students overestimating their ability to employ these strategies. However, they demonstrated better understanding of refutational strategies based on the examples provided in their essays. Interestingly, students who were aware of and utilized these strategies in their essays performed better in the multiple-text comprehension task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]