Synthesis writing in science orientation classes: An instructional design study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.15.01.06Keywords:
synthesis writing, learning to write, writing to learn, critical thinkingAbstract
This study tested an instructional design to improve students' synthesis performance in a specific academic subject, Science Orientation, which aimed to teach students how to critically evaluate scientific debates. The design included three components: 1) students construct a task definition via a learning strategy based on comparing and contrasting texts and processes, 2) students comprehend source information via a read-stop-think-note strategy, and 3) students connect source information critically via a semantic-textual transformation strategy.
After several design iterations, the instructional design was tested in a quasi-experimental experiment with a pretest-posttest. Seven 10th grade classes participated in the intervention (n=129), four in the control condition (n=86). The design seemed feasible for teachers, students completed most learning tasks as intended and evaluated the course positively. Furthermore, texts written in the experimental condition at posttest were rated significantly higher than those written in the control condition on the instructed aspects: representation of source information, intertextual integration, and critical stance. This instructional design appears to have potential for helping students improve their comprehension of scientific debates and comprehensive writing. In the discussion we propose that the instructional design might be a general format for learning to synthesize domain specific information from contrasting sources.
References
References
Authors – Masked for Review
Aben, J., van den Broek, B., Vandermeulen, N., van Steendam, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2017). Feedback op de schrijfaanpak: de ontwikkeling van een schrijfprocesgericht feedbackrapport voor vwo- leerlingen. [Feedback on the writing approach: the development of a writing process-oriented feedback report for pre-university students] Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 18(4), 3-14. https://lt-tijdschriften.nl/ojs/index.php/ltt/article/view/1737
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive Regulation of Text Learning: On Screen Versus on Paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology,17(1), 18–32 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
Barzilai, S., Zohar, A, R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, N.S., Calixte, R.M., & Havewala, M. (2016). The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34 (5) 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008
Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders' summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968409547523
Benetos, K., & Bétrancourt, M. (2020). Digital authoring support for argumentative writing: What does it change? Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 263-290. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr- 2020.12.01.09.
Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational Learning and the Effects of Model–Observer Similarity, Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition & Instruction, 22(1), 1–36. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1
Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2006). What observational learning in writing courses entails: A multiple case study. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 6, 31-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2006.06.01.05
Buyuktas Kara, M., Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Kuru, H. (2018). The effect of two modes of strategy instruction: Modeling vs. Presentational. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5(2),460-495. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/313/247
Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). K-W-L Plus: A Strategy for Comprehension and Summarization. Journal of Reading, 30(7), 626-631. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40031872
Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & Martín, E. (2021). Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education. Instructional Science, 49(4), 515-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12269
Couzijn, M. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Learning to read and write argumentative text by observation of peer learners. Rijlaarsdam, G. (Series Ed.) & Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (Vol. Eds.). Studies in writing. Vol. 14, Effective learning and teaching of writing. A handbook of writing education (2nd Edition, part 1, Studies in learning to write, 241-258). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2739-0_17
Cuevas, I., Mateos, M., Martin, E., Luna, M., Martin, A., Solari, M., González-Lamas, J., & Martinez, I. (2016). Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses from multiple sources: The role of writing beliefs and strategies in addressing controversy. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 205- 226. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.02
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading research quarterly, 44(2), 102-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.2.1
Escorcia, D., Passerault, J., Ros, C., & Pylouster, J. (2017). Profiling writers: analysis of writing dynamics among college students. Metacognition Learning, 12(2), 233-273 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9166-6
Flores-Ferres, M., Van Weijen, D., Van Ockenburg, L., Ten Peze, A., Alkema, E., Holdinga, L., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2022). Understanding to be understood: three basic design principles for effective writing education. [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018) The Work of Writing: Raiding the Inarticulate, Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238-257, https://doi: 10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515
Gils, J. van, Bakker, N., & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2020). De tablet, het geheime wapen voor leesbevordering? De invloed van tekstdrager op leesmotivatie, immersie en tekstbegrip [The tablet, the secret weapon for reading promotion? The influence of text carrier on reading motivation, immersion and text comprehension]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift Jaargang, 21(2), 3-11. https://lt-tijdschriften.nl/ojs/index.php/ltt/article/view/2056/1657
González-Lamas, J., Cuevas, I., & Mateos, M. (2016) Arguing from sources: design and evaluation of a programme to improve written argumentation and its impact according to students’ writing beliefs. Journal for the Study of Education and Development. 39(1), 49–83, https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111606
Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students' writing of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731- 756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning – A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
Hillocks, G. (1986), Research on written composition: new directions for teaching. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019137
Karweit, N. (1984). Time-on-task reconsidered. Synthesis of research on time and learning. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 32-35.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2001_4
Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of notetaking: The encoding- storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01326640
Kirkpatrick, L.C., & Klein, P.D. (2016). High-achieving high school students’ strategies for writing from Internet-based sources of information. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.01
Linderholm, T., Therriault, D. J., and Kwon, H. (2014). Multiple science text processing: building comprehension skills for college student readers. Reading Psychology, 35, 332–356. https://doi: 10.1080/02702711.2012.726696
Luna, M., Villalón, R., Mateos, M., & Martín, E. (2020). Improving university argumentative writing through online training. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 233-262. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.08
Lundstrom, K., Diekema, A. R., Leary, H., Haderlie, S., & Holliday, W. (2015). Teaching and learning information synthesis: an intervention and rubric based assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.1.176
Luo, L., & Kiewra, K. A. (2019). Soaring to successful synthesis writing: An investigation of SOAR strategies for college students writing from multiple sources. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 163-209. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.06
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Martinez, I., Mateos, M., Martin, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 275-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr- 2015.07.02.03
Mason, L.H., Reid, R., & Hagaman, J. (2012). Building comprehension in adolescents: Powerful strategies for improving reading and writing in content areas. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing
Mateos, M., Martin, E., Villalon, R., & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing, 21(7), 675-697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6
Mateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300
Mateos, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Martin, E., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Solari, M. (2020). Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? Instructional Science (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09508-3
Merrill, M.D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Raedts, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van Waes, L., & Daems, F. (2007). Observational learning through video- based models: Impact on students’ accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs, task knowledge and writing performances. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. Boscolo, & S. Hidi (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing, vol. 19, Writing and Motivation (pp. 219–238). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier. doi:10.1108/s15726304(2006)0000019014.
Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30(3), 265–300. Https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802411547
Rietdijk, S., Janssen, T., van Weijen, D., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2017). Improving Writing in Primary Schools through a Comprehensive Writing Program. Journal of Writing Research, 9(2), 173–225. doi:10.17239/jowr-2017.09.02.04
Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., Toorenaar, A., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write. Practice and research. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 53-83. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.3
Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Janssen, T., Groenendijk, T., & Toorenaar, A. (2011). Learning to write and writing to learn. Better: evidence-based education, 3(2), 14-15.
Rijlaarsdam, G.C.W., Janssen, T.M., Rietdijk, S., & Van Weijen, D. (2017). Reporting Design Principles for Effective Instruction of Writing: Interventions as Constructs. In Fidalgo, R., Harris, K.R. & Braaksma, M.A.H. (Eds), Design Principles in Writing Instruction. Studies in Writing, Volume 34. Brill Publishers: Leiden, the Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 9789004270480_013
Rouet, J.F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19– 52). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y. A. K., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzill, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 91-120). John Benjamins Publishing Company https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149–174. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057002149
Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Sandra Espino, S. & Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating Information: An Analysis of the Processes Involved and the Products Generated in a Written Synthesis Task. Written Communication 30(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312466532
Spivey, N, N. (1991). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 256–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007002004
Stein, V., (1989). Elaboration: using what you know. Reading-to-Write Report, No. 6. The Center for the Study of Writing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Berkeley, California.
Surma, T., Vanhoyweghen, K., Sluijsmans, D., Camp, G., Muijs, D., & Kirschner, P. (2019). Wijze lessen, 12 bouwstenen voor effectieve didactiek. Ten Brink Uitgevers, Meppel
Ter Beek, M., Spijkerboer, A. W., Brummer, L., & Opdenakker, M-C. (2018). Gemotiveerd, actief en zelfstandig lezen: Hoe een digitale leeromgeving zowel de leerling als de docent kan ondersteunen bij het begrijpend lezen van informatieve zaakvakteksten in het voortgezet onderwijs. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Van den Bergh, H., & Eiting, M. H. (1989). A method of estimating rater reliability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1989.tb00316.x
Van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677
Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020a). Reporting Writing Process Feedback in the Classroom: Using Keystroke Logging Data to Reflect on Writing Processes. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 109-140. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05
Vandermeulen, N., De Maeyer, S., Van Steendam, E., Lesterhuis, M., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020b). Mapping synthesis writing in various levels of Dutch upper- secondary education. A national baseline study on text quality, writing process and students’ perspectives on writing. Pedagogische Studiën, (97), 187-236.
Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., van den Broek, B., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020c). In search of an effective source use pattern for writing argumentative and informative synthesis texts. Reading and Writing, 33(2), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019- 09958-3
Van Drie, J., Groenendijk, T., Braaksma, M., Janssen, T. (2016). Genrespecifiek schrijven in de mens- en maatschappijvakken: Negen lesontwerpen onderzocht. [Genre-specific writing in the humanities and social sciences: Nine lesson designs examined]. Landelijk Expertisecentrum Mens- en Maatschappijvakken – Amsterdam. https://www.nro.nl/sites/nro/files/migrate/genrespecifiek_schrijven_vanDrie-ea_LEMM.pdf
Van Gelder, T. (2005). Het doceren van kritisch denken: Enkele lessen uit de cognitiewetenschap. College Teaching, Winter 2005; 53,1, pp. 41 - 46. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48
Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2018). Syntheseteksten leren schrijven in het voortgezet onderwijs. Het verband tussen schrijfaanpak en voorkeur voor leeractiviteiten. [Learning to write synthesis texts in secondary education. The relationship between writing approach and preference for learning activities]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift 19(2), 3-9. https://lt-tijdschriften.nl/ojs/index.php/ltt/article/view/1795
Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to Write Synthesis Texts: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 402-4028. https://doi.org/ 10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01
Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2021a). Choosing how to plan informative synthesis texts: effects of strategy-based interventions on overall text quality. Reading and Writing, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10226-6
Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2021b). Learning how to synthesize: The design and evaluation of a reading-writing learning unit for high-school students. L1-Educa- tional Studies in Language and Literature, 21, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL- 2021.21.01.06
Venneker, M. (2017). De kracht van de aantekening. [The power of notes]. NVOX, 5, 232-233.
Weston-Sementelli, J. L., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Comprehension and writing strategy training improves performance on content-specific source-based writing tasks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593- 016-0127-7.
Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., & Griffin, T. D. (2018). Effects of task instructions on comprehension from multiple sources in history and science. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.) Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 341-361). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496-20
Woody, W., Daniel, D., & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005
Yeh C.-C. (2009). Student perceptions of an EFL undergraduate research writing project. RELC Journal, 40(3), 314-
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Edith Alkema, Daphne Van Weijen, Gert Rijlaarsdam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
