Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources

Abstract

The overall goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two different types of intervention aimed at improving written argumentative synthesis by integrating conflicting information from different sources. The participants were 114 undergraduate psychology students. Although the aims of both modalities were the same, the intervention with each group was different. More specifically, both interventions combined the use of a graphical guide that included critical questions with collaborative practice in pairs, but one of them also included explicit instruction in which the processes involved in performing the task were modelled and explained. Before and after the interventions, the students in both intervention groups produced syntheses while working individually without the help of the guide. The degree of integration of conflicting information in the individual products, the number of arguments selected from the sources and the students’ perceptions of the utility of the intervention were assessed. The results indicate that only students who received additional explicit instruction showed an improved ability to integrate conflicting information and increased the number of arguments they selected from the sources. Furthermore, it was found that students in that group tended to perceive the utility of the intervention more positively than those in the other group.

"This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cognition and Instruction on (March 20, 2018), available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/(DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300)."