Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice
Entity
UAM. Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación; UAM. Departamento de Psicología Básica; UAM. Departamento de Psicología Social y MetodologíaPublisher
SpringerDate
2022-06-12Citation
10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x
Reading and Writing 36.4 (2023): 909-936
ISSN
0922-4777 (print); 1573-0905 (online)DOI
10.1007/s11145-022-10318-xFunded by
The present study was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación State program oriented to the challenges of society (I + D + i) (PID2019-105250RB-I00)Project
Gobierno de España. PID2019-105250RB-I00Editor's Version
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10318-xSubjects
argumentative synthesis; collaborative writing; higher education; low performing; explicit instruction; PsicologíaRights
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.Abstract
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
Files in this item
Google Scholar:Granado Peinado, Miriam
-
Cuevas Fernández, María Isabel
-
Olmos Albacete, Ricardo
-
Martín Ortega, Elena
-
Casado Ledesma, Lidia
-
Mateos Sanz, M. Mar
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Producción científica de la UAM [25180]
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.