CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Linguistics and Education ResearchWriting and Handwriting EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education

Open access
Casado-Ledesma, Lidia, Cuevas, Isabel, Van den Bergh, Huub, Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Mateos, Mar, Granado-Peinado, Miriam, Martín, Elena·2021·Instructional Science
DOI 10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 80 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Explicit instruction together with deliberative dialogues was particularly helpful for improving the integration level of syntheses.

    “Explicit instruction, in combination with deliberative dialogues, was especially helpful in improving the level of integration of syntheses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The quality of argumentative synthesis is adequately captured by the level of argument-counterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.
  • Findingreasoning

    Combining explicit instruction and the procedural guideline did not improve synthesis writing as expected.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The quality of argumentative synthesis is adequately captured by the level of argument-counterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.
  • Findingown data

    The effectiveness of the instructional methods depends on which synthesis quality indicator is used.

    “The results showed that the effectiveness of the instructional methods varies according to the synthesis quality indicator.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The quality of argumentative synthesis is adequately captured by the level of argument-counterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.
  • Findingown data

    The procedural guideline together with deliberative dialogues contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments.

    “The procedural guideline, in combination with deliberative dialogues, contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The quality of argumentative synthesis is adequately captured by the level of argument-counterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.
  • Findingown data

    In DD+EI, higher integration quality on T2 predicted higher quality on T4 (β=0.32, se=0.09, p<0.001).

    “In the DD + EI condition there is also a significant effect from the integration quality of T2 on T4; the higher the quality on T2, the higher the quality on T4 (β = 0.32; se = 0.09; p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 44
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Learning paths for coverage vary by experimental condition; no same pattern across four programs.

    “As shown in Fig. 5, the learning paths for the coverage of arguments vary depending on the experimental conditions.We did not find the same pattern of relationships in any of the four programs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Measurement occasion, condition, and their interaction significantly contributed to coverage of arguments.

    “The variables that contribute to the description of the data for the coverage of arguments are: the measurement occasion (pre-test vs post-test) (χ 2 (1) = 29, 29; p < 0.01), the main effect of condition (χ 2 (3) = 10, 84; p < 0.01) and the interaction between measurement occasion and condition (χ 2 (3) = 13, 13; p < 0.01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Condition affected integration scores on T2, T3, and T4, but not on T1.

    “The condition affected integration scores on T2, T3 and T4 (Δχ 2 (9) = 41.29;p < 0.01), but not on T1 (Δχ 2 (3) = 4.13; p = 0.25).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Role of students did not affect coverage scores, and effect of role did not depend on condition.

    “The role of the students did not affect the scores for the coverage of arguments (Δχ 2 (12) = 12.45; p = 0.41), and the effect of the role did not depend on the condition (Δχ 2 (12) = 3.63; p = 0.99).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Learning paths for DD and DD+G are identical for integration; DD+EI and DD+G+EI show different patterns.

    “As shown in Fig. 4, the learning paths for the DD condition and the DD + G condition are exactly the same for the integration variable.By contrast, the learning paths for the DD + EI and DD + G + EI conditions show different relationship patterns with each other and with respect to the base condition (DD condition in which only deliberative dialogues are included).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In DD+EI condition, positive relationship between T3 and T4, and indirect effect of T2 on T4 via T3.

    “Similar results are found in the DD + EI condition, in which there is also a positive relationship between T3 and T4, and an indirect effect of T2 on T4, via T3.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In DD+G+EI condition, coverage on T2 and T3 is not related to or does not affect coverage on T4.

    “In the DD + G + EI condition the coverage of arguments on T2 and T3 is not related or does not affect the coverage on T4.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For coverage, clear relationship between T2 and T3; higher T2 predicts higher T3, especially strong in DD+G.

    “For the coverage of arguments, unlike the findings for the integration variable, we found a clear relationship between T2 and T3; the higher the coverage score on T2, the higher the coverage score on T3.Furthermore, this relationship is especially strong in the DD + G condition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DD+G condition achieved higher post-test coverage scores, while DD+EI achieved the greatest progress.

    “if we compare their pre-test and post-test scores, the students from DD + G condition achieved higher scores on post-test, while those in the DD + EI condition achieved the greatest progress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    Students in all four experimental conditions improved integration quality equally; instructional methods did not differentially impact integration.

    “All the participants achieved an improvement in the integration level of their prior texts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Role of students did not affect integration scores, and the effect of role did not depend on condition.

    “The role of students did not appear to affect the scores for this dependent variable (Δχ 2 (12) = 8.32; p = 0.76), and the effect of role did not depend on the condition (Δχ2 (12) = 8.08; p = 0.78).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In DD condition, T3 has significant effect on T4; T2 has indirect effect on T4 via T3.

    “In the DD condition T3 has a significant effect on T4; students with high scores on T3 are likely to produce texts with high scores on T4.The practice component on T2 also has an indirect effect on T4 in the DD condition, via T3 (T2 scores affect T3 scores, which in turn are related to T4 scores).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the DD+G condition, there was a strong relationship between intermediate products and between T2 and T4, but the relationship between T3 and T4 was non-significant.

    “Something striking happened in the DD + G condition, where we found a strong relationship between the intermediate products and between T2 and T4, but a non-significant relationship between T3 and T4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DD+EI students made most progress in coverage; DD+G students obtained highest post-test coverage scores.

    “Additionally, the mixed model analysis showed that the students who made the most progress in synthesis writing, with respect to the coverage of arguments, were those from the DD + EI condition.Conversely, it was the students from the DD + G program who obtained the highest scores in the post-test.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For argument coverage, mixed models indicated differential advance by instructional method, and SEM confirmed different learning paths for each program.

    “Regarding the coverage of arguments, the mixed models already indicated a differential advance depending on the method of instruction, and the SEM analysis confirmed the existence of different learning paths for each program.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the DD+EI condition, there was a positive relationship between T3 and T4 and an indirect effect of T2 on T4 mediated by T3 scores.

    “A positive relationship between T3 and T4 and an indirect effect of T2 on T4, mediated by the scores on T3 also emerged in the DD + EI program.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the DD+EI condition, there was a strong positive relationship between integration level of intermediate products and integration level on the post-test; both T2 and T3 predicted T4 scores.

    “In the DD + EI condition, we found a strong positive relationship between the integration level of the intermediate products and the level of integration on post-test.Both T2 and T3 enabled scores to be predicted on T4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Intervention was not effective for all participants regarding coverage; DD students did not make progress.

    “Firstly, and contrary to our expectations, the intervention was not effective for all the participants regarding this quality indicator.The students from DD program did not make any progress in the coverage of arguments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The data revealed a negative interaction between explicit instruction and the procedural guideline, contrary to the expected positive effect of combining them.

    “we expected to find a positive effect from combining explicit instructions with the procedural guideline, however our data did not support this hypothesis, but conversely, revealed a negative interaction between these instructional components.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The procedural guideline acted as a distracting element during discussions for students who had previously received explicit instruction.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Students in the DD+G+EI program had difficulty handling several cognitively demanding tasks in a short session.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The relationships between intermediate products T2 and T3 and post-test T4 differed by instructional condition and by synthesis quality indicator.

    “Relationships between the intermediate products, T2 and T3, and the post-test, T4, also differed between the conditions, and with respect to the synthesis quality indicator.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the DD condition, there was a positive relationship between T3 and T4 for argument coverage; T3 scores predicted T4 scores.

    “We found a positive relationship between T3 and T4 in the DD condition regarding the coverage of arguments.The scores on T3 enabled the scores on T4 to be predicted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    In the DD+EI condition, the estimated mean integration level at pre-test was 5.03 (SE=0.32).

    “| | DD + EI | 5.03 | 0.32 | 2.6 | 0.26 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Argumentative synthesis tasks promote knowledge construction and perspectivism.

    “Such writing tasks, according to their epistemic nature, promote knowledge construction and perspectivism (Mateos et al., 2014;Nelson, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mateos et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Nelson, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Students tend to argue for their own thesis and omit arguments and evidence that challenge it.

    “The authors showed a tendency to argue in favour of their own thesis, omitting arguments and evidence for that challenge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reznitskya et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Coverage of arguments and integration processes differ in nature, follow different learning paths, and require different instructional processes.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The quality of argumentative synthesis is adequately captured by the level of argument-counterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Deliberative discussions reduce my-side bias and promote greater argument-counterargument integration in individual essays compared with persuasive discussions.

    “Deliberative discussions, compared with discourses where the aim is to persuade, mitigate my-side bias and promote greater argument-counterargument integration in individual essays elaborated after the discussions (Felton et al., 2015a(Felton et al., , 2015b)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Felton et al., 2015a

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Felton et al., 2015b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barzilai et al., 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Weighting and synthesis/designing claims are predominant strategies in reflective writing.

    “Weighting and synthesis/designing claims are predominant strategies in reflective writing (Nussbaum, 2008b), where the purpose is to explore and to integrate different perspectives so as to reach a reasoned conclusion about an issue.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nussbaum, 2008b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Deliberative dialogues help students produce two-sided essays that integrate arguments and counterarguments, reducing confirmation bias, compared with persuasive dialogues.

    “Deliberative dialogues, compared to persuasive dialogues, also help students to elaborate two-sided essays i.e. texts, which involve argument-counterargument integration, mitigating the effects of confirmation-bias (Felton et al., 2009;Villarroel et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Felton et al., 2009 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.

    Premisecitation

    Argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources can be understood as a form of reflective essay aimed at considering both sides of a controversy and reaching an integrative solution.

    “According to Mateos et al. (2018), argumentative synthesis writing from different and conflicting sources can be understood as a modality of writing a reflective essay, with the aim of considering both sides of a controversy in order to reach an integrative solution.”
    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). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Argumentation is a typically human cognitive activity that requires linguistic command.

    “Argumentation is a typically human cognitive activity (Rapanta et al., 2013), because it requires linguistic command.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rapanta et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Effective argumentation requires recognising different positions and selecting the main arguments for each perspective in order to contrast, evaluate, and integrate them.

    “To argue effectively it is essential to recognise the existence of different positions on a topic, and to select the main arguments linked to each perspective in order to contrast, evaluate and integrate them (Kuhn, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kuhn, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Dialogic interactions may enhance effective argumentative writing when supported by graphic representational tools and explicit instruction.

    “They argue that dialogic interactions may enhance effective argumentative writing when these interactions are supported by graphic representational tools, and explicit instruction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ferreti and Lewis, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Argumentative syntheses are writing tasks characterised by argument-counterargument integration.

    “Argumentative syntheses are writing tasks characterised by argument-counterargument integration (Mateos et al., 2018), and they can be seen as a prototype of reflective writing.”
    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).

    Premisecitation

    Argumentative syntheses are hybrid tasks that involve reading and writing processes.

    “Argumentative syntheses are also hybrid tasks (Spivey, 1997), since they involve reading and writing processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Spivey, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationnone given

    The unexpected lack of benefit from combining both elements is probably due to the conditions under which the intervention was carried out.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The four pairs of argumentative texts were equivalent in structure, length (700-780 words), and number of arguments (6) and counterarguments (6) per text.

    “The texts were equivalent in structure, length of between 700 and 780 words, and a number of arguments (6) and counterarguments ( 6) per text.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The explicit instruction component resulted in a more integrative synthesis and a higher proportion of identified arguments in final texts.

    “The results indicated that the explicit instruction component resulted in a more integrative synthesis and in a higher proportion of identified arguments in their final texts.”
    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.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Coverage of arguments was measured by counting the total number of arguments included in the synthesis based on a list constructed from the source texts.

    “Coverage of arguments: we counted the total number of arguments included in the synthesis, based on a list constructed from the source texts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisenone given

    No previous research has tested the effect of combining different instructional methods with practice based on group discussion activities in real classroom contexts.

    “However, there is no previous research where the authors have tested the effect of combining different instructional methods, with practice based on group discussion activities in real classroom contexts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Deliberative discussions can favour perspective-taking and writing syntheses that seek integrative solutions to controversies.

    “Our results show that when discussions are articulated with a deliberative aim they can favour taking perspectives and the writing of syntheses in which integrative solutions to controversies are sought.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Sample loss occurred during the intervention.

    “Throughout the intervention, sample loss occurred.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two independent judges coded 30% of 372 syntheses; inter-rater reliability was ICC 0.94 for integration and 0.98 for coverage.

    “Two independent judges evaluated the quality of the student syntheses, codifying 30% of the 372 syntheses.Reliability was very good (ICC was 0.94 for Integration Level and 0.98 for Coverage of Arguments).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisenone given

    There were no precedents for intervention programs aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing that introduced a dialogic component.

    “However, there were no precedents for intervention programs aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing in which this dialogic component had been introduced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The assignment of classes to the four intervention programs took into account students' performance in Spanish language.

    “The assignment of the classes to the four intervention programs was carried out taking into account the performance of the students in the subject Spanish language.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Coverage of arguments and integration processes are of different nature, follow different learning paths, and require different instructional processes.

    “The findings of this study are that the coverage of arguments and integration processes are of a different nature, they follow different learning paths and require different instructional processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Explicit instruction was effective for both coverage of arguments and integration, while collaborative practice only had an additional indirect effect on coverage.

    “Explicit instruction was effective for both variables, while collaborative practice only had an additional indirect effect on the coverage of arguments.”
    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.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Integration level was measured with a ten-point scale adapted from previous studies, representing type and frequency of argumentative strategies.

    “Integration level: we employed a ten-point scale (see Table 3), adapted from previous studies (Mateos et al., 2018).It represents the type and frequency of the argumentative strategies in the texts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mateos et al., 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Explicit instruction likely promoted greater understanding, awareness, self-regulation, and performance in DD+EI students.

    “It is likely that this explicit instruction, by explaining and making the processes underlying the task visible, promoted greater understanding and awareness of the task, greater self-regulation and, finally, better performance in these students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    von der Mühlen et al. (2018) found that training in argumentation comprehension was not equally useful for recognizing different argument components; it particularly helped identify more complex arguments with less typical structure and relational aspects such as warrants.

    “The authors found that the intervention was not equally useful in recognizing the different components of the arguments.Specifically, the training was particularly helpful in identifying more complex arguments with a less typical structure and the relational aspects between key components, i.e. warrants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites von der Mühlen et al. (2018) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research found students with explicit instruction identified a higher proportion of arguments in final texts than those who only received procedural guideline.

    “This result is not aligned with the findings of previous research, in which students from intervention programs with an explicit instruction component identified a higher proportion of arguments in their final texts, compared with those who only received the procedural guideline (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019;Mateos et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Granado-Peinado et al., 2019 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mateos et al., 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    For Hefter et al. (2014), knowing how to elaborate counterarguments is not essential when identifying arguments and their strength from evidence and pseudo-evidence.

    “For these authors, it is not essential to know how to elaborate argumentative elements such as counterarguments when identifying arguments and their strength based on the evidence and pseudo-evidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hefter et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Writing a quality argumentative synthesis requires not only identifying arguments but also integrating arguments and counterarguments from opposing positions.

    “In the same way, writing a quality argumentative synthesis implies not only the identification of the arguments, but also the integration of the arguments and counterarguments of the opposing positions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Integrative reasoning requires students to form cross-textual connections during reading and the specific cross-textual connections that result.

    “The integration process, i.e. integrative reasoning, requires the students' formation of cross-textual connections during reading and the specific cross-textual connections that result (List et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites List et al., 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The procedural guideline and explicit instructions improved identification and selection of arguments, but produced better results when not combined in the same instructional program.

    “The procedural guideline and the explicit instructions were useful for improving the identification and the selection of arguments, although these instructional components offered better results when they were not combined in the same instructional program.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    The result that only explicit-instruction students transferred integration learning aligns with Granado-Peinado et al. (2019), who showed students transferred skills to individual writing tasks after an intervention encouraging collaborative work.

    “This result is aligned with the findings of the study by Granado-Peinado 1 3 et al. (2019), in which the authors showed how students successfully transferred the skills developed to their own individual writing tasks after the intervention encouraging collaborative work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial 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

    Hefter et al. (2014) proposed three components of argumentation skills: evaluative knowledge, generative knowledge, and argument quality.

    “These authors adapted Kuhn's (1991Kuhn's ( , 2005) ) argumentation model, proposing three 1 3 components of argumentation skills: evaluative knowledge, generative knowledge and argument quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hefter et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kuhn's (1991, 2005)

      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).

    Premisecitation

    Evaluative knowledge and generative knowledge refer to different steps of the argumentation process.

    “Evaluative knowledge and generative knowledge refer to the different steps of the argumentation process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hefter et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings indicate that using the procedural guideline during discussions helps argument coverage because the graphic organiser makes identification and selection clear.

    “These findings reveal that the use of the procedural guideline during discussions is helpful for the coverage of arguments because the graphic organiser makes the identification and the selection task very clear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    According to Taber and Lodge (2012), individuals reading controversial texts on topics they hold strong beliefs about devote more effort to processing disconfirming evidence.

    “According Taber and Lodge (2012), when individuals read controversial texts about subjects on which they hold strong beliefs, they dedicate more effort to processing disconfirming evidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Taber and Lodge (2012) source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The integration process appears more cognitively demanding than the argument coverage process.

    “The integration process seems to be more cognitively demanding than the coverage of argument process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    According to Hefter et al. (2014), high argument quality requires an own position built from theory, genuine evidence, alternative theory, counterargument, rebuttal, and synthesis.

    “According to Hefter et al. (2014), high argument quality requires elaborating an own position built of theory, genuine evidence, alternative theory, counterargument, rebuttal and synthesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hefter et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    List and Alexander (2019) argued that students may demonstrate four levels of integration when forming connections across texts: relational identification, separate representation, simultaneous relation, and relational elaboration.

    “List and Alexander (2019) argued that students might demonstrate four levels of integration, or integrative reasoning, when forming connections across texts, i.e. level 1, relational identification; level 2, separate representation; level 3, simultaneous relation; level 4, relational elaboration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites List and Alexander (2019) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Discussion sessions focused more on integrative solutions than on coverage, explaining why DD students did not improve coverage.

    “The discussion sessions were more focused on reaching integrative solutions to the controversies, than on training the students in the coverage of argument processes.This would explain why those students who participated in the condition that only consisted of deliberative discussions did not experience improvement in this quality indicator of the synthesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The researchers did not have enough knowledge about participants, and it was necessary that discussions be stimulated by participatory students.

    “The researchers did not have enough knowledge about the participants, and it was necessary that the discussions were stimulated by the participatory students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study did not randomly allocate subjects to instructional conditions but assigned intact class-groups.

    “we did not carry out a random allocation of the subjects to the instructional conditions, but assigned intact class-groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In the learning path SEM models, each student received the group score for T2 and T3, which can create dependencies between the data.

    “In the learning path SEM models, each student received the group score for T2 and T3; a fact that can create dependencies between the data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The pre-post analysis combined with SEM allowed a holistic exploration of how argumentative synthesis writing is learned as a result of instructional programs.

    “The pre-post analysis in combination with the SEM analysis allowed us to explore in a holistic way, how argumentative synthesis writing is learned, as a result of the instructional programs provided.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study tried to guarantee equivalence of intervention groups by considering participants' Spanish language scores.

    “In this study we tried to guarantee the equivalence of the intervention groups by considering the scores of the participants in the Spanish language.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
69 of 69

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Traditional adversarial debates predominate in Spanish educational contexts.

    “Despite the aforementioned benefits of deliberative dialogues, traditional adversarial debates continue to predominate in Spanish educational contexts.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Discourse goals directly influence the individual texts produced after arguing.

    “Additionally, discourse goals have a direct influence on the individual texts produced after arguing.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are no known intervention programs that use deliberative dialogues to promote argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources.

    “Nevertheless, there are no known intervention programs in which deliberative dialogues are used to promote a particular type of argumentative writing: i.e. argumentative syntheses from conflicting sources.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The quality of argumentative synthesis is adequately captured by the level of argument-counterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.

    “The two indicators of good argumentative synthesis texts are the level of argumentcounterargument integration and the coverage of arguments from the sources.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The video modelling script accurately reflects correct execution of the seven stages of the explicit instructional process.

    “The discussion script reflected all the interactions corresponding to the seven stages of the explicit instructional process and their correct execution.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Classroom discussions are usually posed with a persuasive goal.

    “Discussions are common classroom activities, but they are usually posed with a persuasive goal.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The most complete program (DD+G+EI) would advance more significantly due to the combination of explicit instruction and procedural guideline.

    “Our assumption was that the students from the most complete program (DD + G + EI) would advance more significantly due to the combination of aids, i.e. the explicit instruction and procedural guideline.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Explicit instruction would be a more effective instructional component than the procedural guideline in improving synthesis writing.

    “Our initial assumption was also that the explicit instruction would be a more effective instructional component than the procedural guideline in improving synthesis writing.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The procedural guideline acted as a distracting element during discussions for students who had previously received explicit instruction.

    “A possible explanation is that the procedural guideline was a distracting element during discussions when students had previously received an explicit instruction session.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The texts used in discussions caused different degrees of dispute between students.

    “It is possible that the texts caused different degrees of dispute between the students.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Some source texts had an important emotional load that hindered students' integration processes.

    “It is possible that some of our texts had an important emotional load that hindered the integration processes carried out by the students.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Students in the DD+G+EI program had difficulty handling several cognitively demanding tasks in a short session.

    “It is possible that students from the DD + G + EI program had difficulty handling several cognitively demanding tasks in a short session.”
12 of 12

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & Martín, E.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Casado-Ledesma, Lidia
  • Cuevas, Isabel
  • Rijlaarsdam, Gert
  • Mateos, Mar
  • Granado-Peinado, Miriam
ORCID
Venue
Instructional Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-06-25
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
515-559
ISSN
  • 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1952
DOI
10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
OpenAlex
W3175058771
Semantic Scholar
c84f082b887c8a11ea318b1d14b6d4bdbf98a402
Cited by
29
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
43.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Instructional Science (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Biblos-e Archivo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) (submittedVersion)
  • Deposito Digital UFV (Francisco de Vitoria University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (FPU16/01454)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
deliberative dialogue, dialogic argumentation, explicit instruction, video modeling, procedural guidelines, argumentation strategies, high school students, writing instruction

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 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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