Collaborative writing of an argumentative synthesis from multiple sources: The role of writing beliefs and strategies to deal with controversy
Open accessAbstract
In this study, university students are faced with the task of collaboratively writing an argumentative synthesis from multiple sources. Specifically, in writing, they must integrate conflicting information on a particular issue obtained from reading two texts that present different perspectives. As research in this field has shown, university students’ transactional beliefs about writing have a bearing on the quality of the texts that they write. In addition, studies on collaborative learning have demonstrated the role of constructive strategies in addressing controversy. Constructive strategies require an epistemic approach, which implies understanding and integrating opposing positions and rationales. Therefore, the specific aims of the study are to analyze the relationships between the following: (a) writing beliefs and the joint written synthesis, b) writing beliefs and the strategies used to address the controversies that emerge during collaborative writing, and (c) how students resolve controversies and the quality of their joint syntheses. The participants were 52 fourth-year psychology students at a state-run university in Madrid. The results show that transactional writing beliefs are associated with both the controversy strategies employed by members of student dyads and the quality of the joint syntheses. Furthermore, the strategies for addressing controversy are associated with the quality of the joint syntheses.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
My side bias is reflected in the writing of argumentative syntheses from sources that present contradictory positions on a topic.
“This tendency, which has been shown in research into the writing of argumentative texts, (Kuhn, 1991;Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007;Schwarz, 2009) is also reflected in the writing of argumentative syntheses from sources that present contradictory positions on a topic (Cuevas et al., 2016;Mateos et al., 2018).”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Cuevas et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis
Horn, J. L. (1965) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289447 · Cited by 8,965 · see citing works
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · see citing works
Chan, D. K. (1998) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 · Cited by 2,981 · see citing works
(2000) · Cited by 2,531 · see citing works
A Developmental Model of Critical Thinking
Kuhn, D. (1999) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x028002016 · Cited by 1,231 · see citing works
Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections
Storch, N. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 · Cited by 1,052 · see citing works
Item Parceling Strategies in SEM: Investigating the Subtle Effects of Unmodeled Secondary Constructs
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819923002 · Cited by 710 · see citing works
Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532209104670 · Cited by 475 · see citing works
On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819921004 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2
Shehadeh, A. (2011) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning
Spivey, N. N. (1997) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.2307/358470 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Energizing Learning: The Instructional Power of Conflict
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x08330540 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.76.1.59-92 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Kuhn, D. (1986) · Teachers College Record · doi:10.1177/016146818608700404 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality
White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2004) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Toward a theory of documents representation.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (1999) · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources
Leijten, M., Waes, L. V., Schriver, K. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2014) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom?
Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal‐Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Writing Approaches of Graduate Students
Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. M. (2007) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410701366001 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/bf03178760 · Cited by 124 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Writing a synthesis based on two or more sources is a hybrid task; it is very demanding and has a strong potential for knowledge acquisition (Mateos & Solé, 2009; Mateos, Solé, Martín, Miras, Cuevas & Castells, 2014; Segev-Miller, 2004; Spivey, 1997).”
BackgroundSelf-citationStrategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments
Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.008 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Writing from Sources: The Effect of Explicit Instruction on College Students' Processes and Products
Segev-Miller, R. (2004) · L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature · doi:10.1023/b:esll.0000033847.00732.af · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments
Voss, J. F., & Dyke, J. A. V. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651593 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Boscolo, P., & Masón, L. (2003) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220970309602060 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., et al. (2012) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088312466532 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Cognitive Processes in Discourse Synthesis: The Case of Intertextual Processing Strategies
Segev-Miller, R. (2010) · Studies in writing · doi:10.1108/s1572-6304(2007)0000020016 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Cooperative Goals and Constructive Controversy for Promoting Innovation in Student Groups in China
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002) · Journal of Education for Business · doi:10.1080/08832320209599697 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Villalón, R., Mateos, M., & Cuevas, I. M. A. (2013) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.836157 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationReading and writing tasks on different university degree courses: what do the students say they do?
Mateos, M., Villalón, R., de Dios, M. J., & Martín, E. (2007) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070701476183 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Self-citationReading to write an argumentation: the role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs
Mateos, M., Cuevas, I. M. A., Ortega, E. M., Martín, A. C. U., Sarrionandía, G. E., & Luna, M. (2010) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationConcepciones del alumnado de secundaria y universidad sobre la escritura académica
Villalón, R., & Mateos, M. (2009) · Journal for the Study of Education and Development Infancia y Aprendizaje · doi:10.1174/021037009788001761 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationWriting to Learn from Multiple-Source Inquiry Activities in History
Wiley, J., Steffens, B., Britt, M. A., & Griffin, T. D. (2014) · Writing as a Learning Activity · doi:10.1163/9789004265011_007 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Participant profiles during collaborative writing
Marttunen, M. J., & Laurinen, L. I. (2012) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2012.04.01.3 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
University Student Conceptions of Learning Science Through Writing
Ellis, R. A., Taylor, C. E., & Drury, H. (2006) · Australian Journal of Education · doi:10.1177/000494410605000102 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Collaborative Writing Groups in the College Classroom
McAllister, C. H. (2005) · Studies in writing · doi:10.1007/0-387-24250-3_10 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Monson, V. E. (2012) · UST Research Online (University of St. Thomas - Minnesota) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Ferreti, R.P., & Lewis, W.E. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 113-140). New York: The Gilford Press.
- Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (2003). Controversy and creativity. In D.W. Johnson & F.P. Johnson (Eds.), Joint together. Group theory and group skills (pp. 319-365). Pearson Educa- tion: New Jersey.
- Mateos, M. & Solé, I. (2012) Undergraduate students' conceptions and beliefs about academic writing. In M. Castelló y C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and texts in academic societies. Studies in Writing Series (pp. 53-67). United Kingdom: Emerald.
- Mateos, M., Solé, I., Martín, E., Miras, M., Cuevas, I. & Castells, N. (2014). Reading and writing to learn in academic contexts: Writing from multiple sources. In G.Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), P.
- Klein, P. Boscolo, L. Kirkpatrick, and C. Gelati (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing Series: vol.28. Writing as a learning activity (pp.169-190). Leiden: Brill.
- Miras, M., Solé, I., & Castells, N. (2013). Creencias sobre la lectura y escritura, producción de síntesis escritas y resultados de aprendizaje [Beliefs regarding reading and writing, the production of written summaries, and the results of learning]. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 57(18), 437-459.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education
Granado-Peinado, M., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Cuevas, I. (2019) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationGranado-Peinado, M., Cuevas, I., Olmos, R., Martín, E., Casado-Ledesma, L., & Mateos, M. (2023) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationCuevas, I., Mateos, M., Casado-Ledesma, L., Olmos, R., Granado-Peinado, M., Luna, M., Núñez, J. A., & Martín, E. (2024) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-024-00890-x · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Cuevas, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., Luna, M., & Martín, A.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
- Universidad a Distancia de Madrid (ES)
- Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Cuevas, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Writing Research
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-226
- ISSN
- 2030-1006 (ISSN-L)
- 2294-3307
- OpenAlex
- W2530187934
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Writing Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion)
- Biblos-e Archivo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Re-Unir (International University of La Rioja) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (2014-2016)
- 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, writing beliefs, epistemic approach, university students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
