Readers’ awareness in the use of intertextual strategies when writing from multiple texts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2024.16.02.03Keywords:
metacognitive reading , awareness, intertextual integration strategies, multiple-text comprehension, undergraduate studentsAbstract
Metacognitive reading awareness, involving cognitive process control and reading strategies, is linked to better comprehension and performance, but its relationship with intertextual integration strategies and the quality of argumentative essays remains unexplored. This study aimed to investigate the role of metacognition in employing integration strategies when reading conflicting texts. 69 undergraduate students participated in an online reading-writing activity, where they wrote argumentative essays based on conflicting texts about red meat consumption. We examined the students' use of intertextual integration strategies (refutation, weighing, synthesizing) and assessed their metacognitive awareness through their reflections on these strategies. The quality of the argumentative essays served as a measure of multiple text comprehension. The results indicated a lack of metacognitive awareness regarding integration strategies, with students overestimating their ability to employ these strategies. However, they demonstrated better understanding of refutational strategies based on the examples provided in their essays. Interestingly, students who were aware of and utilized these strategies in their essays performed better in the multiple-text comprehension task.
References
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall
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, 973-999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8
Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: an intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092
Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52, 167–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00461520.2017.1323219
Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher & G. S. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 113–134). Albex.
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2012). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 58–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.F. (1999). Content Integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Erlbaum.
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, pp. 211-230. Cambridge University Press.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Academic.
Cohen, J. 1998. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.020
Dardjito, H. (2019). Students’ metacognitive reading awareness and academic english reading comprehension in EFL context. International Journal of Instruction, 12, 611–624. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12439a
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417–446. https://doi.org/10. 22329/il.v29i4. 2907
Girli, A., & Öztürk, H. (2017). Metacognitive reading strategies in learning disability: Relations between usage level, academic self-efficacy and self-concept. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10, 93-102. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2017131890
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
Halford, G. S., & McCredden, J. E. (1998). Cognitive science questions for cognitive development: The concepts of learning, analogy, and capacity. Learning and Instruction, 8, 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(97)00023-6
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52, 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use. Educational Psychologist, 54, 20–39. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514
Mateos, M., Cuevas, I., Martín, E., Martín, A., Echeita, G., & Luna, M. (2011). Reading to write an argumentation: The role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 281– 297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical Questions and Argument Stratagems: A Framework for Enhancing and Analyzing Students’ Reasoning Practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59–92.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
Nussbaum, M. E. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129781
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The Development of Strategies of Readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002). Effective Beginning Reading Instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_3
Reza, M., Nizam, H., & Kamarul, M. (2013). The Importance of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness in Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6, 235-244. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
Richter, T. & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Erlbaum.
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).Information Age Publishing.
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52, 200–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In P. van den Broek (Ed.), Learning to read in a digital world. John Benjamins.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578
Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: the effect of explicit instruction on college students' processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4, 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af
Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: the case of intertextual processing strategies. In M. Torrance, L. VanWaes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition (pp. 231–250).Emerald Group.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(01)00039-2
Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7–26.
Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. Computer Supported Learning, 2, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students' strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 113-147. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_01
Tarchi, C., & Villalón, R. (2021). The influence of thinking dispositions on integration and recall of multiple texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1498-1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12432
Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009
Weston-Sementelli, J.L., Allen, L.K. & McNamara, D.S. (2018). Comprehension and writing strategy training improves performance on content-specific source-based writing tasks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28, 106–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0127-7
Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2
Yin, Y., Parpala, A., & Toom, A. (2023). The Relationship between International Higher Education Students’ Writing Conceptions and Approaches to Learning. Journal of Writing Research, 14, 421–446. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.14.03.04
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Christian Tarchi, Lidia Casado Ledesma
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
