Choosing how to plan informative synthesis texts: Effects of strategy-based interventions on overall text quality

Abstract

The current two studies examined the effects of an instructional unit on synthesis writing for 9th grade students on holistic text quality. Because students' writing routines have been shown to affect the effectiveness of writing instruction, we designed a unit that aimed to be equally effective for all writers, regardless of their routines. On two occasions in the unit, we provided students with options to choose between a Preplanning or Drafting strategy. They could create an individual learning path within the unit. We tested the effects of the unit in two consecutive studies with independent samples, using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with switching panels. Study 1 included three teachers and 152 9th grade students from five classes in one school. We found a significant effect of the unit on text quality in both panels. However, analyses showed that this effect was moderated by writing routine. To generalize the effect across writing routines, we provided students in Study 2 with an extra session on metacognitive knowledge about (synthesis) writing processes, enabling them to make better-informed strategy choices. Study 2 included six teachers and 233 students from 10 classes in three schools, all different from Study 1. Analyses again showed a significant effect of the experimental condition in panel 1, which was replicated in panel 2. Moreover, the effect was no longer moderated by writing routine. This indicates that the redesigned intervention was equally effective for students with different routines.

Introduction to the special issue on synthesis tasks: where reading and writing meet

“…Role of pretest activity The studies of Luna et al (2022) and Van Ockenburg et al (2021) built on the experience of the pretest synthesis task for (subsequent) task representation activities in the learning program. From an instructional perspective, this seems a logical decision.…”

“…In both studies, these additions had an explorative, post-hoc character. One of the drawbacks of such a strategy is that as a result of the learning task not having been strictly formulated, responses were not easy to analyze (Van Ockenburg et al, 2021), or that, because participants were free to add a response (Luna et al, 2022), the effort and the quality of the critical thinking process at hand cannot be fully or adequately demonstrated. Our recommendation is to include products of key learning activities in intervention studies in a structured way, not only to report fidelity of implementation of the conditions, but also to evaluate the mediation effects of these activities on the outcomes.…”

“…Granado Peinado et al (2022) focused on university students who underperformed on source integration, and Luna et al (2022) targeted university students in an online distance learning course. The studies by Casado Ledesma et al (2021), Van Ockenburg et al (2021), andKonstantinidou et al (2022) studied participants from secondary education. Konstantinidou et al 's (2022) intervention specifically focused on students in vocational secondary education.…”

“…Konstantinidou et al 's (2022) intervention specifically focused on students in vocational secondary education. The intervention programmes presented in the various studies are diverse: explicit instruction with video modeling on writing and collaboration in pairs (Granado Peinado et al, 2022), a product versus a process approach (Luna et al, 2022), instruction and deliberative dialogues (Casado Ledesma et al 2021), individual learning paths within instruction (Van Ockenburg et al, 2021), and scenario-based reading and writing education (Konstantinidou et al, 2022).…”

“…First, all strategies work from reading to writing, with the integration of information as the transition point between the analytical reading phase and the comprehensive writing phase. Reading in synthesis text instruction is taught in the first place as identifying arguments in texts (Casado Ledesma et al, 2021;Granado Peinado et al, 2022;Luna et al, 2022;Van Ockenburg et al, 2021), or as selecting relevant information for a pragmatic writing task (Konstantinidou et al, 2022). It is not seen as an act of comprehension, as meaning-making, as relating new information to the existing knowledge base.…”