Single Paper Session 20

Session Page

Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Back to programme overview
Add this session to calendar

Explicit instruction and rubrics for argumentative synthesis writing: Effect of Collaboration

Keywords
collaborative writing;instructional design in writing;intervention study;reading and writing
Domain
Instructional Design

Abstract

Explicit instruction and rubrics for argumentative synthesis writing in Secondary Education: The effect of CollaborationGutiérrez-Bermejo, E.*, Cuevas, I.*, Mateos, M.*, Martín, A.* Luna, M** & Martínez, I**UAM*, UDIMA**Secondary education students must develop key competences to address current challenges, such as critical thinking and argumentative skills (European Commission, 2019). Writing an argumentative synthesis based on different texts presenting opposing perspectives on a topic is a complex task with great potential for promoting the development of these competences (Mateos et al.,2018). However, students struggle with identifying, contrasting, and integrating opposing perspectives, especially through weighing and synthesizing strategies, thus they require specific instructional support (Casado-Ledesma et al., 2021). The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of an instructional program for learning to write argumentative syntheses in the first year of secondary education, across different task settings (individual vs. collaborative writing). Instructional program includes learning activities based on explicit instruction (EI) and practice using an instructional rubric (PR), each adapted from Cuevas et al. (2024). Forty-nine students were assigned to two conditions (EI+PR vs EI+PR+C) and wrote three argumentative syntheses (pretest/mid-test/posttest syntheses). Results show that both conditions were effective in improving students’ synthesis quality. Additionally, in the practice session, students who wrote collaboratively achieved better results, although these differences were attenuated in the posttest. Findings are discussed, and we conclude with educational implications regarding the adaptation of task settings based on students’ profiles.Keywords: Argumentative Synthesis, Explicit Instruction, Rubric, Collaborative Writing.References.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3Cuevas, I. Mateos, M., Casado-Ledesma, L.,Olmos, R., Granado-Peinado, M.,Luna, M., Núñez, J.A. & Martín, E. (2024). How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39, 4573–4596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00890-xMateos, 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, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300

Rubrics for Planning and Revising Argumentative Syntheses in Collaborative and Individual Settings

Keywords
collaborative writing;intervention study;reading and writing;writing processes
Domain
Instructional Design

Abstract

Using Instructional Rubrics for Planning and Revising Argumentative Syntheses in Collaborative and Individual Settings: Effects on Text QualityMedina-Gutiérrez, M.*, Cuevas, I.*, Olmos, R*, van Steendam, E.**, Rijlaarsdam, G.*** & Mateos, M.*UAM*, KULeuven**, UvA***Integrating sources to write argumentative syntheses is a key academic skill, yet many undergraduates struggle, particularly during planning and revision (Vandermeulen et al., 2024). The current study examines the impact of an instructional rubric on the quality of students' argumentative synthesis tasks, with a special focus on reaching integrative conclusions, given their difficulties in integrating opposing perspectives through synthesizing strategies (Cuevas et al., 2024; Mateos et al, 2018). The effect of the rubric was analyzed after its use in two learning sessions focused on different stages of the writing process (planning and drafting and reviewing and revising) and delivered either individual (R+I) or collaborative (R+C) settings. A total of 101 undergraduates were assigned to three conditions (R+I, R+C, control) and wrote three argumentative syntheses, each based on two texts presenting opposing views on a topic (pretest-synthesis, intermedia-synthesis’ draft, revised intermediate-synthesis, and posttest-synthesis.). The rubric improved students’ learning, and these effects were already evident in the drafting phase and increasing marginally during the revision phase in individual settings. However, these effects were not greater under collaborative learning. Findings are discussed, and we conclude with recommendations for future research and educational implications.Keywords: argumentative synthesis, instructive rubric, collaborative setting, writing processes.ReferencesCuevas, I. Mateos, M., Casado-Ledesma, L., Olmos, R., Granado-Peinado, M., Luna, M., Núñez, J.A. y Martín, E. (2024). How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39, 4573–4596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00890-xMateos, 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, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., De Maeyer, S., Lesterhuis, M & Rijlaarsdam, G (2024). Learning to write syntheses: the effect of process feedback and of observing models on performance and process behaviors. Reading dand Writing 37, 1375–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10483-7

Supporting peer feedback conversations during argumentative writing: rubric vs. conversation chart

Presenting author
Landrieu, Yana , Ghent University, Belgium
Keywords
collaborative writing;intervention study;speaking and writing;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Instructional Design

Abstract

Research topic/aim This dialogic writing study investigates how students’ peer feedback conversations can be supported during the revision phase of the collaborative writing process. Our research questions focus on whether providing students with a rubric or a conversation chart stimulates dialogic interaction and how these conversations relate to subsequent text revisions.Theoretical framework Grounded in Mercer and Wegerif’s (2002) and Bouwer’s and colleagues (2024) frameworks on exploratory talk, the study builds on research highlighting the collaborative potential of peer feedback during argumentative writing. While guidance is widely acknowledged as essential for effective peer feedback, little is known about which forms of support work best. This study examines the transition from oral peer feedback to written text revisions and explores whether provided peer feedback is (or is not) actually reflected in the subsequent text revisions.Methodology An intervention study was conducted with 102 students (aged 16–18) across eight lessons on argumentative writing. Using a pre-test post-test design, two conditions were compared: a rubric and a conversation chart condition. Data included peer feedback conversations analysed through content analysis and statistical tests: ANOVA, MANOVA, chi-square, and binary logistic regressions.Findings During peer feedback conversations, students primarily discussed quality of (counter)arguments and rebuttals. The conversation chart appeared to be most effective in fostering exploratory talk, particularly when combined with teacher intervention. However, transfer from dialogue to text revision was limited, indicating that peer feedback alone does not guarantee effective text revisions.Relevance This research addresses underexplored dimensions of writing: the collaborative nature of peer feedback and its connection to subsequent text revisions. Findings offer practical guidelines for integrating scaffolds and teacher support to enhance dialogic interaction and improve writing outcomes.ReferencesMercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2002). Is exploratory talk productive talk? In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: analysing productive interaction (pp. 79–101). Bouwer, R., van Braak, M., & van der Veen, C. (2024). Dialogic writing in the upper grades of primary school: How to support peer feedback conversations that promote meaningful revisions. Learning and Instruction, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101965