CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesWriting and Handwriting EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice

Open access
Granado-Peinado, Miriam, Cuevas, Isabel, Olmos, Ricardo, Martín, Elena, Casado-Ledesma, Lidia, Mateos, Mar·2023·Reading and Writing
DOI 10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study tested four versions of an intervention for low-performing undergraduate psychology pairs writing argumentative syntheses from contradictory sources. The fullest version, combining explicit instruction in both synthesis writing and collaboration with a guide and pair practice, produced the best synthesis quality, especially for integration, while pair practice mediated gains only in argument identification.

Key findings

  • Pairs in explicit-instruction conditions (CPG+EICS and CPG+EIS) outperformed those without explicit instruction (CPG and CP) on argument identification (difference = 0.098, SE = 0.025, p < .001) and integration level (difference = 1.06, SE = 0.162, p < .001).
  • The most complete CPG+EICS program exceeded CPG+EIS on integration (difference = 0.442, SE = 0.235, p = .033) and marginally on argument identification (difference = 0.052, SE = 0.036, p = .075). CPG and CP did not differ significantly on either dimension (identification: 0.004, SE = 0.034, p = .451; integration: 0.124, SE = 0.223, p = .286).
  • Mediation analyses showed that for argument identification, the program effect on the final synthesis was fully mediated by intermediate syntheses written during pair practice (total indirect = 0.050, SE = 0.021, p = .014, 95% CI [0.010, 0.091]); for integration, no significant indirect effect was found (total indirect = 0.153, SE = 0.189, p = .419, 95% CI [−0.218, 0.523]), with direct program effects on intermediate and marginal final syntheses.
  • ANOVA results showed program main effects for argument identification, F(3,52) = 6.433, p = .001, η² = .271, and integration, F(3,52) = 17.033, p < .001, η² = .496, plus session main effects for identification, F(3,156) = 35.889, p < .001, η² = .408, and integration, F(2,121) = 13.786, p < .001, η² = .210.

Methods

  • Participants were 112 third-year psychology students (13.6% male, 86.4% female) drawn from 160 volunteers and randomly assigned to 56 pairs. Inclusion required low initial argument integration (pretest M = 2.39, SD = 0.87 out of 6) and failure to overcome my-side bias; the final sample was 69% of baseline.
  • The intervention ran across four 90-minute weekly sessions with four conditions of decreasing support: CPG+EICS (guide + explicit instruction in writing and collaboration + pair practice), CPG+EIS (guide + explicit instruction in writing + pair practice), CPG (guide + pair practice), and CP (pair practice only). All pairs used the same conflicting source texts on educational psychology topics, with 8–9 arguments/counterarguments and 609–867 words.
  • Outcomes were the proportion of arguments identified and integration level on a 0–6 scale. Two independent judges coded 28.57% of 224 syntheses; reliability was ICC = .890 for identification and ICC = .831 for integration. Analyses used two ANOVAs with planned one-tailed comparisons and two mediation models in Mplus 7.0 with 10,000 bootstrap samples, coding program ordinally from CP = 0 to CPG+EICS = 3.

Limitations

  • The authors state that the study addressed only selected facets of argumentation (identification and integration), used a brief intervention (one instruction session plus two pair-practice sessions) with low-to-moderate effect sizes, and measured written products rather than collaboration processes.
  • The authors note that the sample could not compare high- and low-proficiency writers, and they call for larger, more diverse samples and for pairing students by prior topic opinion or controversy level in future work.
  • Evident from the text: participants were all psychology undergraduates and predominantly female (86.4%), limiting generalizability to other disciplines and more gender-balanced groups; the study also did not analyze individual contributions or regulation strategies during collaboration.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 43 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The pairs that received the most complete program (CPG+EICS) significantly improved the quality of their synthesis in argument analysis.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The pairs that received the most complete program (CPG+EICS) significantly improved the quality of their synthesis in argument identification.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The quality of the CPG+EICS pairs' performance exceeded that of students in the three other intervention programs.

    “The quality of their performance exceeded the performance of students in the three other intervention programs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The combination of explicit instruction and practice in pairs had positive effects on argument identification.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The pretest mean argument integration score was 2.39 points (SD = 0.87) out of a maximum of 6 points.

    “The students were encouraged to carry out a first collaborative synthesis (pretest) where a mean of 2.39 points (SD = 0.87) out of a maximum of 6 points was obtained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 20
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The mean level of argumentative integration was low, although some pairs produced integrative syntheses, with a maximum score of 5 in the coding system.

    “Therefore, the mean level of argumentative integration was low although some pairs of students did produce integrative syntheses, scoring a maximum of 5 in our coding system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The final sample of 56 pairs represented 69% of the potential participants at baseline and showed low initial proficiency in writing a collaborative argumentative synthesis.

    “Thus, this final sample of 56 pairs of students, which represented 69% of the potential participants at baseline, showed a low initial proficiency to write a collaborative argumentative synthesis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    To improve students' identification and interrelation of contrasting claims, it was not enough to explicitly teach writing strategies; it was also necessary to explicitly teach students to collaborate.

    “The most noteworthy findings highlighted that, in order to achieve this, it was not enough to explicitly teach writing strategies, but it was also necessary to explicitly teach students to collaborate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Research indicates that college students are not adequately prepared for communication, including writing at an appropriate academic level and creating well-structured arguments.

    “Although college students are expected to develop proficiency in communication, including the ability to write at an appropriate academic level, and to create well-structured arguments, research indicates that they are not adequately prepared (Butler & Britt, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butler & Britt, 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For integrating arguments from various sources, a direct effect of explicit instruction was found, indicating that practice in pairs did not contribute to the final scores.

    “By contrast, for the other learning outcome (i.e., integrating arguments from various sources), a direct effect of explicit instruction was found, indicating that practice in pairs did not contribute to the final scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mateos et al., 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In order to acquire synthesizing skills, it is necessary to involve students in a set of learning activities that promote all three transformational processes: selecting information from sources, organizing, and connecting that information.

    “In a review study in the field of learning to write source-based synthesis texts, Van Ockenburg et al. (2019) stated that in order to acquire synthesizing skills it was necessary to involve students in a set of learning activities that promote all three transformational processes: selecting information from sources, organizing, and connecting that information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Ockenburg et al., 2019 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Writing a synthesis from multiple sources requires organizing, selecting, and connecting information from more than one text.

    “Writing a synthesis from multiple sources is a task that requires organizing, selecting, and connecting information from more than one text (Nelson & King, 2022;Spivey, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nelson & King, 2022 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Spivey, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    It is important to teach students how to work together.

    “Dillenbourg (2002) stated that it is important to teach students how to work together.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dillenbourg, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Expert writers or high-achieving university students employed strategies for planning, setting goals, monitoring, textualizing, and revising more frequently and thoroughly than novices or low achievers.

    “Several studies, based on classical models defining the different strategies used by expert and novice writers, suggest that expert writers or high-achieving university students employed strategies for planning, setting goals, monitoring, textualizing and revising more frequently and thoroughly than novices or low achievers (Chien, 2012;Rahmawati et al, 2019;Rijlaarsdam et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chien, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rahmawati et al, 2019 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rijlaarsdam et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Ferretti and Lewis stated that the key is to use explicit instruction, along with discussion, modelling, and practice, to scaffold the process of acquiring and applying writing strategies, especially for struggling writers.

    “Authors such as Ferretti and Lewis (2013), stated that the key is to use explicit instruction, along with discussion, modelling and practice, to scaffold the process of acquiring and applying writing strategies, especially for struggling writers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ferretti and Lewis, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Participants were not allowed to intervene during the intervention session to ensure the information conveyed was the same across programmes.

    “The participants were not allowed to intervene during the intervention session to ensure that the information conveyed by the researcher was the same in all fourintervention programmes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A position-based writing prompt could lead students to take a perspective early on and to attend only to information that supported it.

    “Their results suggested that a position-based writing prompt (asking writers to take a position and support it) could lead students to take a perspective early on and to attend only to information that supported it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wiley et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-judge agreement for coding was good, with ICC = 0.890 for argument identification and ICC = 0.831 for level of integration.

    “For the proportion of identified arguments an ICC = 0.890, CI 95% [.818 -0.933] and Alpha = 0.888 were found.For the level of integration an ICC = 0.831, CI 95% [0.721 -0.898] and Alpha = 0.835 were found.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    It should not be assumed that students already have the skills to work effectively with others.

    “Although discussions and collaborative practices may be positive for dealing with this task, it should not be assumed that students already have the skills to work effectively with others (Thomas, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thomas, 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Mateos et al. (2018), only those students who received additional explicit instruction improved their ability to integrate conflicting information and increased the number of arguments they selected from the sources.

    “Only those students who received additional explicit instruction improved their ability to integrate conflicting information and increased the number of arguments they selected from the sources.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mateos et al., 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A script was used to ensure the same order of explanation across intervention programmes.

    “a script was prepared with the content to be covered in each intervention programme.This script was used by the researcher in charge of each session, thus ensuring that the same order was followed in the explanation of each component.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Teaching students to answer critical questions about argumentation schemes was necessary for them to consider perspectives contrary to their own and to include more counterarguments and rebuttals in their writing.

    “They concluded that teaching students to answer critical questions about argumentation schemes was necessary for them to consider perspectives contrary to their own and to include more counterarguments and rebuttals in their writing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Song and Ferretti, 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Individuals tend to reason in biased ways, specifically by searching for evidence that supports their prior beliefs and by ignoring counterevidence.

    “Argument-counterargument integration is a complex process since individuals tend to reason in biased ways, specifically by searching for evidence that supports their prior beliefs and by ignoring counterevidence (Nickerson, 1998;Villarroel et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nickerson, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Villarroel et al., 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Only pairs who failed to overcome the my side bias effect were selected, in order to achieve a homogeneous sample and to verify whether the intervention was beneficial only for low-proficiency pairs.

    “For this reason in order to achieve a homogeneous sample, and to be able to verify whether the designed intervention was beneficial only for low proficiency pairs of students, we only selected those pairs who failed to overcome the my side bias effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The inclusion criterion for the sample was low levels of argument integration.

    “The criterion for inclusion in this sample was to present low levels of argument integration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Source-based argumentation is often quite challenging.

    “a task that is often quite challenging but has been shown to be effective for learning (Nussbaum, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Spivey, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    To identify a larger number of arguments from the source texts, explicit instruction that focuses solely on helping students to write argumentative syntheses has proved to be as effective as help directed at collaboration.

    “However, to identify a larger number of arguments from the source texts, explicit instruction that focuses solely on helping students to write argumentative syntheses has proved to be as effective as help directed at collaboration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Granado-Peinado et al., 2019 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    There are two different learning paths for the two elements of argumentative synthesis writing: argument identification and integration level of arguments and counterarguments.

    “On the other hand, and based on the evidence found that there are two different learning paths for the two elements of argumentative synthesis writing: argument identification and integration level of arguments and counterarguments (Mateos et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mateos et al., 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Findings suggested that explicit instruction was the key to improving argumentative synthesis writing, but the learning path was not the same for argument identification and integration level of arguments and counterarguments.

    “These findings suggested that explicit instruction was the key to improving argumentative synthesis writing; however it was shown that the learning path was not the same for the different processes involved in the task: argument identification and integration level of arguments and counterarguments (Mateos et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mateos et al., 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    112 third-year psychology students were randomly assigned into 56 pairs that were maintained during the four sessions of the programme.

    “Participants were 112 third-year psychology students comprising (13,6% male and 86,4% female) who were randomly assigned into 56 pairs that were maintained during the four sessions of the programme.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Participants were required to hand in syntheses before leaving and sign an attendance sheet to ensure they were completed as instructed.

    “to ensure that the syntheses produced were completed as instructed the participants were required to hand them in before leaving the classroom, and to sign an attendance sheet.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Explicit instruction helped students overcome the 'my-side bias' by including relevant arguments and information from the two contradictory sources in their syntheses.

    “Thus, explicit instruction helped students overcome the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wolf et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The explicit instruction of the more comprehensive programme helped students use balanced-reasoning strategies such as 'weighing' and 'synthesising' to achieve argument-counterargument integration.

    “In this sense, the explicit instruction of the more comprehensive programme helped, on the one hand, students to use in their syntheses strategies involving balanced-reasoning, such as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    There are two different learning paths for the two dependent variables: explicit instruction in both writing and collaboration processes is effective in identifying and integrating arguments, and practice in pairs mediates this effect only for argument identification.

    “Furthermore, the mediation analyses carried out in this work also support the idea that there are two different learning paths for the two dependent variables: explicit instruction in both the writing and collaboration processes is effective in identifying and integrating arguments and in addition, practice in pairs mediates this effect only for argument identification.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The more complete instruction helped directly in the integration dimensions of quality of the syntheses, and for argument identification, practice in pairs reinforced the effect of instruction on the quality of the final synthesis.

    “This more complete instruction helped directly in the integration dimensions of quality of the syntheses and, in the case of the argument identification; the practice in pairs reinforced this effect of the instruction on the quality of the final synthesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The four pairs of argumentative source texts were controlled for structure, number of arguments, length, and reliability.

    “This ensured that the content was comprehensible to all and ensured that, for design purposes, all texts contained the same parameters, controlling for structure, number of arguments, length, and reliability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    It is not enough to propose activities without a specific objective or to administer support such as a guide without instruction; these practices need to be supported by explicit teaching that ideally should focus on both writing and collaboration.

    “To this end, it is not enough to propose activities without a specific objective or to administer support such as a guide without instruction.These practices need to be supported by explicit teaching that ideally should not only focus on the writing itself but also on how to collaborate effectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The identification of arguments from texts, being a simpler process, could be mechanized and automated through practice in pairs.

    “However, the identification of arguments from texts, being a simpler process, could be mechanized and automated through practice in pairs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    For level of integration, the mediation analysis showed a direct effect of the programme on the integration quality of the syntheses in the two intermediate and final moments, and practice in pairs did not reinforce the effect of the programme in the final synthesis.

    “The mediation analysis for level of integration showed a direct effect of the programme on the integration quality of the syntheses in the two intermediate and final moments.In this case, synthesis written on practice in pairs sessions did not reinforce the effect of the programme in the final synthesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The specific task of writing argumentative syntheses involves two distinct processes: the identification and integration of arguments.

    “On the other hand, it appears that the specific task of writing argumentative syntheses involves two distinct processes: the identification and integration of arguments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Complex and highly demanding processes such as argument integration require explicit teaching.

    “Complex and highly demanding processes such as argument integration would require explicit teaching.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study's findings yield information on the quality of the collaboratively written product but not on the processes.

    “the results enable us to obtain information on the quality of the collaboratively written product, but not on the processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Explicit instruction had a direct effect on both argument identification and level of integration, while practice in pairs only had an additional indirect effect on argument identification.

    “These two learning paths were found in the same direction: explicit instruction was a direct effect on both variables, while practice in pairs only had an additional indirect effect on argument coverage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The way to teach identification and integration may vary according to their complexity, so it is essential to unravel this and provide adequate aids.

    “Therefore, the way to teach each of them may vary according to their complexity, so it is essential to unravel this and provide adequate aids.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
39 of 39

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are no previous studies that have examined the differences between university students with different levels of performance in argumentative synthesis-writing tasks from multiple texts.

    “To the best of our knowledge there are no previous studies that have examined the differences between university students with different levels of performance in argumentative synthesis-writing tasks from multiple texts.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are no studies regarding the differential impact of interventions for improving argumentative synthesis writing depending on the skills of the university writer.

    “Nor are there any studies regarding the differential impact of interventions for the improvement of argumentative synthesis writing depending on the skills of the university writer.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The literature in higher education on writing interventions for different types of writers is scarce.

    “the literature in higher education is scarce.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A low-performing writer profile is frequent among university students who could greatly benefit from the aid offered.

    “All the recurrent problems mentioned above illustrate a low-performing writer profile that is frequent among university students who could greatly benefit from the aid offered.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students' difficulties with the integration task might partly be due to the difficulties they encounter in collaborative writing.

    “In these previous studies, one issue that has remained unresolved is that students' difficulties with the integration task might partly be due to the difficulties they encounter in collaborative writing.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The four intervention programmes are ordered hierarchically/cumulatively (CP < CPG < CPG+EIS < CPG+EICS).

    “This was because the four instructions examined included components in a hierarchical/cumulative way (CP < CPG < CPG+EIS < CPG+EICS).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Identifying arguments is a simpler and less demanding process than integrating arguments.

    “Identifying arguments is a simpler and less demanding process than integrating arguments.”
7 of 7

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?

  • Previous studies show that intermediate practice sessions with the support of a guide mediate the full impact of explicit instruction on the number of arguments and counterarguments selected by students from the sources and included in their final syntheses.

    “In the case of argument selection, previous studies show that intermediate practice sessions with the support of a guide mediate the full impact of explicit instruction on the number of arguments and counterarguments selected by students from the sources and included in their final syntheses (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023).”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Granado-Peinado et al., 2023

  • These results are consistent with those obtained in face-to-face teaching contexts (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023; Mateos et al., 2018) and in virtual contexts (Luna et al., 2023).

    “These results are consistent with those obtained (a) in face-to-face teaching contexts (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023;Mateos et al., 2018), and (b) in virtual contexts (Luna et al., 2023).”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Granado-Peinado et al., 2023

  • The study's results on selection and integration are coherent with those of other studies investigating the direct or indirect effect of explicit instruction on two argumentative synthesis quality indicators.

    “Our results are coherent with those obtained in other studies investigating the direct or indirect effect -through collaborative practice sessions with the support of a guide-of explicit instruction on two argumentative synthesis quality indicators (selection and integration) (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023;Mateos et al., 2020).”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Granado-Peinado et al., 2023

  • Task complexity (a reflexive essay as opposed to a persuasive essay) (Nussbaum, 2008), students' initial synthesis writing strategy skills (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023), and their ability to use strategies for tackling the demands associated with planning and revising their essays (cf. Ferretti & Fan, 2016) may affect the impact of aids on synthesis quality.

    “On the one hand, task complexity -a reflexive essay as opposed to a persuasive essay- (Nussbaum, 2008), and on the other hand, students' initial synthesis writing strategy skills (Granado-Peinado et al., 2023), as well as their ability to use strategies for tackling the demands associated with planning and revising their essays (cf.Ferretti & Fan, 2016).”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Granado-Peinado et al., 2023

  • Previous studies found a direct impact of explicit instruction on the degree of integration in intermediate syntheses written with the support of the guide and in final syntheses written without aids.

    “In these studies, researchers found the direct impact of explicit instruction on the degree of integration in intermediate syntheses written with the support of the guide, and in final syntheses written without aids.”

    From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Granado-Peinado et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Figure 4 incorrectly marks the final direct effect as significant

    Minor

    The asterisk on the Figure 4 coefficient denotes p < .05, but the results report p = .079 for the same coefficient.

  • Figure 3 marks an indirect effect as more significant than reported

    Minor

    Figure 3 marks the indirect effect with two asterisks, defined in its note as p < .001. The results give p = .014 for that effect.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Coll, C., & Onrubia, J. (2001). Estrategias discursivas y recursos semióticos en la construcción de sistemas de significados compartidos entre profesor y alumnos [Discursive strategies and semiotic resources in the construction of shared meaning systems between teacher and students]. Revista Investigación En La Escuela, 45, 21–31.
  2. Ferretti, R.P., & Lewis, W.E. (2013) Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In: S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, J. Fitzgerald. (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction, (pp. 113–140) Gilford.
  3. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
  4. Szigriszt-Pazos, F. (2001). Sistemas predictivos de legibilidad del mensaje escrito: fórmula de perspicuidad [Predictive systems for readability of the written message: perspicuity formula]. (Doctoral Thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  5. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Erlbaum.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Granado-Peinado, M., Cuevas, I., Olmos, R., Martín, E., Casado-Ledesma, L., & Mateos, M.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (ES)
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
  • University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Granado-Peinado, Miriam
ORCID
Venue
Reading and Writing
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-12
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
909-936
ISSN
  • 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0905
DOI
10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x
OpenAlex
W4281741154
Semantic Scholar
8519b995dc85b83ace889d38b8b043e8d264e3ca
Cited by
14
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Reading and Writing (publishedVersion)
  • Biblos-e Archivo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) (submittedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2019-105250RB-I00)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
collaborative writing, explicit instruction, undergraduate writing, argument identification, writing intervention, argumentation analysis

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-29.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-29.

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