Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The process of integrating information from multiple sources is highly challenging for students.
“The process of integrating information from multiple sources has proven highly challenging for students (Barzilai et al., 2018).”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Barzilai et al., 2018
Strategies of recognising conflicts, contrasting viewpoints, and integrating positions help resolve cognitive conflict and promote greater understanding of sources and their connections.
“These strategies facilitate the resolution of the cognitive conflict, promoting a greater understanding of the sources and their connections (Barzilai et al., 2018).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Barzilai et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 91 · Cited by 176
- Authors
- Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Barzilai, Sarit
- Venue
- Educational Psychology Review
- Published
- 2018-03-26
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 973-999
- ISSN
- 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-336X
- OpenAlex
- W2789612720
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 34.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The I-CORE Program of the Israel Council of Higher Education and the Israel Science Foundation (1716/12)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
- Keywords
- multiple texts, instructional practices, collaborative discussion, graphic organizers, summarization, annotation, explicit instruction, modeling, text types, literacy education, student motivation, text structure, integration criteria
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
