Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome?

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

In Kuhn et al. (2016), students in the dialogic argumentation group improved in addressing both sides of an issue but needed more practice to develop towards an integrative stance.

“In a study by Kuhn et al. (2016), at the end of the first year of the intervention, although the students in the dialogic argumentation group improved their essay writing in terms of addressing both sides of an issue, they needed more practice for further development towards an integrative stance (which includes the negatives of their preferred position or positives of the opposing position).”

• cites Kuhn et al. (2016) sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Instruction and practice together explained 7% of the variance in T3 integration scores and 8% at T4.

“The instruction component and practice together explained 7% of the variance in T3 integration scores and 8% of the variance at T4 in integration scores.”

May combine two claims.

Collaborative practice contributed to argumentation coverage at T4 via T2 scores influencing T3 scores (p=0.006) and via T3 scores influencing T4 scores (p<0.001).

“The parameter estimates show that the collaborative practice component contributed to argumentation coverage at T4 via T2-scores at T2 influenced scores at T3 (p = 0.006)-and via T3-scores at T3 influenced scores at T4 (p < 0.001).”

May combine two claims.

For integration, the effect of instruction was not significant at T2 (p=0.066) but was significant at T3 (p=0.009) and T4 (p=0.006).

“For integration, the effect of this instruction was not significant at T2 (p = 0.066) but appeared to be significant at T3 (p = 0.009) and T4 (p = 0.006).”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction with collaborative practice was more effective than self-study instruction with subsequent collaborative practice for both argument coverage and integration.

“The primary study compared the individually written pre-and posttest syntheses and found statistically significant differences favouring explicit instruction in both dependent variables: the argumentation coverage and the level of integration.”

• Also stated in: § 1 3 · boosted

  “The results of our prior study indeed confirmed that explicit strategy instruction with collaborative practice was more effective than the self-study instruction with subsequent collaborative practice.”

• Also stated in: § 1 3 · plain

  “Explicit instruction was more effective for both dependent variables, namely the coverage of arguments from sources and the quality of integration of information.”

• cites Mateos et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

At pretest both outcome variables were correlated (r=0.41), the correlation weakened at posttest (r=0.21), and no correlation was observed in the two texts produced during collaborative practice.

“At the pretest, both outcome variables were correlated in both intervention conditions (r = 0.41).However, the correlation became weaker during the posttest (r = 0.21), and no correlations were observed in the two texts produced during the collaborative practice-the coverage of arguments and the level of integration were not related.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

At posttest, the condition effect was statistically significant for both argument coverage and integration, favoring explicit instruction.

“while the condition effect was statistically significant in the posttest, V (2, 103) = 6.178, p = 0.003, η 2 = 0.120, for both dependent variables, argumentation coverage, F (1, 103) = 10.052,p = 0.002, η 2 = 0.088; integration level, F (1, 103) = 7.510, p = 0.007, η 2 = 0.067.”

May combine two claims.

The effects of collaborative practice accounted for 16% of the variance for argumentation coverage and 1% for integration.

“The difference between the explained variance for T2 and T4 points to the effects of collaborative practice, which were 16% for argumentation coverage and 1% for integration.”

May combine two claims.

Collaborative practice had an additional indirect effect only on argument coverage, not on integration.

“The results suggested two different learning paths for both dependent variables: explicit instruction is effective for both variables, while collaborative practice only has an additional indirect effect on argument coverage.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction had a positive effect on collaborative practices for argumentation coverage at T2 (p=0.036) and T4 (p=0.001) but not at T3 (p=0.226).

“Table 7 shows a positive effect of explicit instruction on collaborative practices for argumentation coverage at T2 (p = 0.036) and T4 (p = 0.001) but not at T3 (p = 0.226).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Three independent coders were trained during four training sessions to fine-tune coding and score criteria.

“Three independent coders were trained to fine-tune the coding and score criteria during the four training sessions.”

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

Identifying arguments is easier than integrating, and moving from identifying to integration requires a shift in task representation.

“A possible interpretation of these results is that identifying arguments is easier than integrating, and that moving from identifying to integration requires a shift in task representation.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Nussbaum (2008a) distinguished persuasive writing (goal to convince) from reflective writing (goal to explore and integrate sides).

“Nussbaum (2008a) proposed a distinction between persuasive writing, where the goal is to convince another and to "win" an argument (which would be the object in a debate), and reflective writing, in which writers focus on exploring and integrating an issue's various sides to reach a reasoned conclusion.”

• cites Nussbaum 2008a sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

The sources were similar in length (585-816 words) and in number of arguments (6-9 per source).

“The sources were similar in terms of their length, which was between 585 and 816 words, and in the number of arguments either for or against a position, between six and nine per source.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Ferreti and Lewis (2013) concluded that dialogic interactions, representational tools, and explicit strategy instruction are complementary approaches.

“In their analysis of best practices in teaching argumentative writing, Ferreti and Lewis (2013) concluded that dialogic interactions, with the support of some representational tools and explicit strategy instruction, are complementary approaches in teaching effective argumentative thinking and writing.”

• cites Ferreti and Lewis 2013Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

Coders were unaware of intervention conditions when coding a random 50% of syntheses.

“Once the criteria were refined, the coders coded a random set of 50% of the syntheses, while unaware of the intervention conditions.”

May combine two claims.

The randomisation was successful and no differences existed between conditions or groups of pair members due to flaws in the randomisation procedures.

“Therefore, we can conclude that the randomisation was successful and that no differences existed between the conditions and/or groups of pair members due to flaws in the randomisation procedures.”

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

The time spent in practice sessions varied by pair (90-120 min) and was not recorded.

“The time taken in the practice sessions varied by pair and ranged from 90 to 120 min, although the specific time each pair spent was not recorded.”

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

Kimmerle et al. (2017) found different stages of collaborative writing and suggested different stages might require specific instructional support.

“The results showed different stages of collaborative writing (sharing knowledge, contrasting and restructuring arguments/counterarguments, and reaching a shared conclusion) and suggested that the different stages of collaboration might require specific instructional support.”

• cites Kimmerle et al. 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Synthesis writing is regarded as the most demanding and elaborate form of source-based writing.

“Synthesis writing is seen as the most 1 3 demanding and elaborate approach to writing based on sources (Mateos et al. 2007(Mateos et al. , 2014;;Shanahan 2013).”

• cites Mateos et al. 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mateos et al. 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Shanahan 2013Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Song and Ferreti (2013) found that students receiving explicit strategy instruction wrote better essays with more counterarguments, alternative positions, and refutations.

“Students who received the explicit strategy instruction wrote 1 3 better essays with more counterarguments, alternative positions, and refutations than the students in the other groups.”

• cites Song and Ferreti 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Two final models controlled for whether randomisation of students and of pair members influenced results.

“We added two final models to control for whether the randomisation of students influenced the results (M9) and whether the randomisation of pair members to each of the samples influenced the results (M10).”

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

Integration of information may have received less attention in the collaborative sessions and/or may have been less transferable from pair work to individual practice.

“Integration of information may have received less attention in the collaborative sessions and/or might have been less transferable from pair work to individual practice.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were randomly assigned to conditions.

“The participants were randomly assigned to conditions.”

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

Such a representation requires the content to be transformed and entails greater complexity and cognitive effort.

“Such a representation requires the content to be transformed and entails greater complexity and cognitive effort (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987).”

• cites Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987Not checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Moving from identifying to integration implies a change in the task's representation, from a relatively simple persuasive objective to constructing a conclusion that none of the sources provides.

“Moving from identifying to integration implies a change in the task's representation-that is, its representation from a relatively simple persuasive objective to the construction of a conclusion that none of the sources provides.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

SEM models were specified in advance based on the theoretical model.

“However, guided by our theoretical model, we specified the models to be tested in advance.”

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

Two-sided reasoning involves strategies of weighing and synthesizing arguments and counterarguments.

“However, according to these authors, weighing arguments and counterarguments and synthesising them are strategies clearly involved in two-sided reasoning (Nussbaum and Schraw 2007).”

• cites Nussbaum and Schraw 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The collaborative practice sessions affected the learning outcomes differently among both groups for both outcome variables, most probably as a result of the preceding instruction variable.

“Secondly, the collaborative practice sessions affected the learning outcomes among both groups for both outcome variables differently, most probably as a result of the preceding instruction variable.”

May combine two claims.

Explicit instruction, compared with self-study, resulted in more arguments covered from the source texts and higher integration scores.

“explicit instruction, compared with self-study, resulted in more arguments being covered from the source texts and higher scores on integration of information.”

• cites Mateos et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Song and Ferreti 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Integration requires reflective argumentative writing.

“Integration requires reflective argumentative writing, as proposed by Nussbaum (2008a) and Nussbaum and Kardash (2005).”

• cites Nussbaum (2008a) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Nussbaum and Kardash (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Integration needs more practice than argumentation coverage does.

“Another tentative explanation is that integration needs more practice than argumentation coverage does.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Good integration might also require support in language skills and vocabulary.

“In addition, good integration might also require some support, in terms of language skills and vocabulary, because two-sided argumentation and writing an integrative conclusion are quite difficult for students.”

May combine two claims.

During the first practice session (T2), students who received explicit instruction were more focused on identifying the arguments of both positions, while in the second practice session (T3) they were more able to focus on contrasting positions and constructing an integrated conclusion.

“During the first practice session (T2), students who received explicit instruction were more focused on identifying the arguments of both positions, but in the second practice session (T3), the students were more able to focus on contrasting the positions and constructing an integrated conclusion.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Collaborative practice only facilitates some phases of the synthesis writing process.

“A tentative explanation for this result is that collaborative practice only facilitates some phases of the process.”

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

For the collaborative practice papers, some pairs invested more in one variable while other pairs did the opposite.

“For the collaborative practice papers, this might imply that some pairs were invested more in one variable, while other pairs did the opposite.”

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

Teaching students to go beyond standing for one position and refuting the opposite requires explaining and modelling of the strategies involved in the overall process.

“Teaching students to go beyond standing for one of the positions and limiting themselves to refuting the opposite, requires explaining and modelling of the strategies involved in the overall process.”

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

Kuhn and Crowell (2011) observed that teenage students involved in dialogic argumentation wrote essays containing significantly more arguments addressing both sides of the controversy than a comparison group following a more traditional discussion format.

“This result is consistent with Kuhn and Crowell (2011), who observed that teenage students involved in dialogic argumentation wrote essays containing significantly more arguments which addressed both sides of the controversy than a comparison group that followed a more traditional discussion format.”

• cites Kuhn and Crowell (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Previous research shows an effect of explicit instruction via modelling in collaborative writing settings on students' writing skills.

“The results are also consistent with those of previous research that shows the effect of explicit instruction via modeling in collaborative writing settings on students' writing skills (Van Steendam et al. 2010, 2014).”

• cites Van Steendam et al. 2010, 2014Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Pair work could lead to difficulties in constructing an integrative conclusion and in textualisation.

“However, pair work could lead to difficulties in (c) constructing an integrative conclusion and (d) the textualisation.”

May combine two claims.

In the authors' previous study, the explicit instruction condition affected both the coverage of arguments and integration.

“The present study was inspired by our previous study, in which we found that the explicit instruction condition affected both the coverage of arguments and the integration (Mateos et al. 2018).”

• cites Mateos et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

Explicit instruction might be necessary, by modelling the writing phases and explaining the processes involved in the practice sessions.

“Explicit instruction might be necessary, by modelling the different writing phases and unravelling the processes involved by explaining and fostering strategic learning, which is not merely technical, in the practice sessions.”

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

The sociocultural perspective on argumentative synthesis text writing supports the generative aspect of the process, while the cognitive perspective supports its integrative aspect.

“We generally found that the sociocultural perspective on argumentative synthesis text writing would support the generative aspect of the process, while the cognitive perspective would support its integrative aspect.”

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

The quality of integration depends on the integration of both sides, which goes beyond the source text information.

“However, the quality of integration depends on the next phase of synthesis writing: the integration of both sides, which goes beyond the source text information.”

May combine two claims.

The data could indicate that instruction first affected argumentation coverage at T2 and then integration at T3.

“These data could indicate that instruction first affected argumentation coverage (in T2) and then integration (in T3).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

To write an argumentative synthesis, one must understand that covering the arguments from the sources is a necessary preliminary step.

“To write an argumentative synthesis, one must understand that covering the arguments from the sources is a necessary preliminary step.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The graphical format of the table in the guide, with a double column and sections with different arguments, probably allowed participants to identify the reasons put forward in each text.

“The graphical format of the table in the guide, with the double column and the sections with different arguments in each, probably allowed the participants to identify the reasons 1 3 put forward in each text.”

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

The critical questions in the guide aimed at promoting integration processes might not have been very helpful for triggering those processes.

“Conversely, the critical questions in the guide aimed at promoting integration processes might not have been very helpful for triggering these processes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The students could have changed their task representation and set other goals, prioritizing integration and being more selective in identifying arguments.

“The students could have changed their task representation and set other goals, while prioritizing integration and being more selective in identifying the arguments.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Identifying the arguments in the second practice session (T3) might have required fewer cognitive resources, which could be dedicated to integration.

“Identifying the arguments in the second practice session (T3) might have required less cognitive resources, which could be dedicated to integration.”

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

It cannot be ruled out that some pairs used the questions in the guide without writing their answers in it.

“We cannot rule out the possibility that some pairs used the questions posed in the guide but did not show their answers by writing in the guide.”