Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research into discourse synthesis examines the ways in which writers make use of, and transform, multiple other texts in writing their own. It is intertextual research that has blurred boundaries of various kinds, not only the boundary between the processes of reading and writing but also boundaries across disciplines as well as regions of the world. Guided by a cognitive constructivist perspective, this research into discourse synthesis drew at its origin—and continues to draw now—from multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical work. This article, which establishes the foundations for this research and traces its development, attends to writers’ transformations of multiple source texts resulting from operations of organizing, selecting, and connecting. Studies into synthesis writing for varying academic tasks have shown that, by applying these operations to multiple textual sources, writers produce discourses that function as new texts in new contexts. Following a discussion of historical background, attention in this article goes to three major issues: the variation in synthesis associated with different academic genres; the kinds of insights into product and process that come from different research approaches; and the nature of new instructional approaches that emphasize elements of discourse synthesis. All facets of this research reveal continuity as well as change, the latter occurring, in large part, through contact and convergence of discourse synthesis research with related bodies of work. The conclusion, which centers on the notion of transformation, summarizes research conducted thus far and points to future directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the remainder of the article we do not include these citations for the documents model framework. We hope that our readers will understand that, each time we refer to the documents model framework, we are also referring to authors of the relevant publications for this framework.

References

  • Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(2), 133–178. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010003002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D., Unrau, N. J., Sailors, M., & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.). (2018). Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, B., Dahl, J., Holmqvist, K., Holsanova, J., Johansson, V., Karlsson, H., Strömqvist, S., Tufvesson, S., & Wengelin, A. (2006). Combining keystroke logging with eyetracking. In L. van Waes, M. Leijten, & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (pp. 166–172). Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 28(3), 246–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badenhorst, C. (2018). Graduate student writing: Complexity in literature reviews. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., Mor-Hagani, S., Zohar, A. R., Shlomi-Elooz, T., & Ben-Yishai, R. (2020). Making sources visible: Promoting multiple document literacy with digital epistemic scaffolds. Computers and Education, 157, 103980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99–116). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43, 737–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (2007). Escrita, gênero e interação social (A. P. Dionisio & J. C. Hoffnagel, Eds. & Trans.). Cortez.

  • Bazerman, C. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaugrande, R. de, & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. Longman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 72–92). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. M. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, J. (2012). Plagiarism, intellectual property and the teaching of L2 writing. De Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Janssen, T. (2007). Writing hypertexts: Proposed effects on writing processes and knowledge acquisition. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(4), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2007.07.04.06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2018). Effects of hypertext writing and observational learning on content knowledge acquisition self-efficacy and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 9(3), 259–300. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.09.03.02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracewell, R. J., Frederiksen, C. H., & Frederiksen, J. (1982). Cognitive processes in composing and comprehending discourse. Educational Psychologist, 17(3), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528209529252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L. G., & Salmerón, I. (2020). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Encisco, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 79–98). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Gil, L., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). The role of different task instructions and reader characteristics when learning from multiple expository texts. In M. T. McGrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 95–122). Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1(2), 247–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088384001002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. (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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading—from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. (2003). Argument in hypertext: Writing strategies and the problem of order in a nonsequential world. Computers and Composition, 20(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00176-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 515–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R. (1987). An apology for form; or who took form out of the process? College English, 49(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/377786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbel, A., Girardot, J.-J., & Jaillon, P. (2002). DREW: A dialogical reasoning web tool. In A. Méndez-Vilas & J. A. Mesa González (Eds.), Information society and education: Monitoring a revolution. Proceedings of International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Education (pp. 516–521). ICTE.

  • Council of Chief State School Officers and National State Governors. (2010). Common core state standards for English/language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (2002). Identity-creators and image-makers: Using citation analysis and thick description to put authors in their place. Scientometrics, 54(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015628320056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(3), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing genres. Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, C. (2019). Trends in modeling academic writing in multilingual contexts. In B. Huemer, E. Lejot, & K. L. B. Deroey (Eds.), Academic writing across languages: Multilingual and contrastive approaches in higher education (pp. 41–57). Bohlau Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. NCTE Research Report No. 13. National Council of Teachers of English.

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escorcia, D., Passerault, J. M., Ros, C., & Pylouster, J. (2017). Profiling writers: Analysis of writing dynamics among college students. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 233–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9166-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETS. (2021). Understanding your TOEFL iBT® scores. https://www.ets.org/toefl/test-takers/ibt/scores/understanding/

  • Expertgroep Doorlopende Leerlijnen. (2009). Referentiekader taal en rekenen. De referentieniveaus. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/taal-en-rekenen/referentiekader-taal-en-rekenen

  • Fischer, F., Chinn, C. A., Engelmann, K., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (2018). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. Peck, Reading-to-write: Exploring a social and cognitive process (pp. 35–75). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folman, S., & Connor, U. (2005). Writing from sources in two cultural contexts. In T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context/s (pp. 165–184). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). Pantheon.

  • Frederiksen, C. (1975). Effects of context-induced processing operations on semantic information acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90007-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748917100101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 30–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902733600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–351). Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Hackett.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). Effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granado-Peinado, M., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Cuevas, I. (2019). Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2037–2058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. (1993). The role of task in the development of academic thinking through reading and writing in a college history course. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 46–75. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S., & Higgins, L. (1994). “Once upon a time”: The use of retrospective accounts in building theory in composition. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 115–140). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. De Gruyter/Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of written processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, L. (1993). Reading-to-argue: Helping students transform source texts. In A. M. Penrose & B. M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive research in the college writing classroom (pp. 70–101). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoey, M. (1983). On the structure of discourse. George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homayounzadeh, M., Saadat, M., & Ahmadi, A. (2019). Investigating the effect of source characteristics on task comparability in integrated writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 41, 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, R. (Ed.). (in press). Handbook of international research on writing. Routledge.

  • Howard, R. M. (1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaki, S., & Kaufer, D. S. (2012). Computer-aided rhetorical analysis. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonth-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 276–296). IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6(3), 286–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006003003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufer, D. S., Geisler, C., & Neuwirth, C. M. (1989). Arguing from sources. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavytska, T., Shovkovyi, V., & Osidak, V. (2021). Source-based writing in secondary school: Challenges and accomplishments. In C. N. Giannikas (Ed.), Teaching practices and equitable learning in children’s language education (pp. 63–83). IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1999). The psychology of writing. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of college students. Written Communication, 2(4), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088385002004006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, C., & Leu, D. J. (2019). Exploring the collaborative synthesis of information during online reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. R., & Stahl, N. A. (2015). Between word and text in life narratives: Using discourse synthesis to model processes. Narrative Inquiry, 25(1), 184–292. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.25.1.11kin

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, L. C., & Klein, P. D. (2009). Planning text structure as a way to improve students’ writing from sources in the compare-contrast genre. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D., Boscolo, P., Kirkpatrick, L. C., & Gelati, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing as a learning activity. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D., Haug, K. N., & Arcon, N. (2017). The effects of rhetorical and content subgoals on writing and learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue, and novel. In Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (L. S. Roudiez, Ed.; T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Blackwell. (original work published 1966).

  • Kruse, O., Chitez, M., Rodriguez, B., & Castelló, M. (Eds.). (2016). Exploring European writing cultures. Country reports on genres, writing practices and languages used in European higher education. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 10. ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/1016

  • Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R. L. (1982). The “research paper” in the writing course: A non-form of writing. College English, 44(8), 811–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J.-F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701675317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2020). Introduction to multimodal analysis. Bloomsbury.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leijten, M., Van Horenbeeck, E., & Van Waes, L. (2019). Analysing keystroke logging data from a lingusitic perspective. In E. Lindgren & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 71–95). Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2005). Multimedia genres and traversals. Folia Linguistica, 39(1–2), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenski, S. D., & Johns, J. L. (1997). Patterns of reading-to-write. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079709558252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., Du, H., & Wang, Y. (2019). Understanding students’ conceptions of task assignments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell, J. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Collaboration. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luzón, M., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2019). Science communication on the Internet. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lybbert, E. K., & Cummings, D. W. (1969). On repetition and coherence. College Composition and Communication, 20(1), 35–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/354111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). Guilford.

  • Many, J. E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G., & Mitchell, E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self-directed reading-writing-research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, 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. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/747793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B., Afflerbach, P. P., Enciso, P., & Lesaux, N. K. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 5). Routledge.

  • Nelson, J. (1992). Constructing a research paper: A study of students’ goals and approaches. Technical Report No. 59. Center for the Study of Writing at University of California-Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 342 019.

  • Nelson, J., & Hayes, J. R. (1988). How the writing context shapes college students’ strategies for writing from sources. Technical Report No. 16. Center for the Study of Writing and Learning at University of California-Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 297 374.

  • Nelson, N. (2001a). Discourse synthesis: Process and product. In R. G. McInnis (Ed.), Discourse synthesis: Studies in historical and contemporary social epistemology (pp. 379–396). Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N. (2001b). Writing to learn: One theory, two rationales. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 23–36). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0740-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 435–450). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). The reading-writing connection, viewed historically. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 1–52). University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N., & Castelló, M. (2012). Academic writing and authorial voice. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 33–52). Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2009). Text analysis as theory-laden methodology. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 406–418). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N., Skinner, K., & Barrera, E. S. IV. (in press). The writing-reading nexus: Authors and their audiences. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Handbook of international research on writing. Routledge.

  • Nelson, T. H. (1982). Literary machines: The report on, and of, Project Zanadu concerning word processing, electronic publishing, hypertext, thinkertoys, tomorrow’s intellectual revolution, and certain other topics including knowledge, education and freedom. Ted Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. H. (1987). Computer lib/Dream machines (2nd ed.). Tempus Books of Microsoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numrich, C., & Kennedy, A. S. (2017). Providing guided practice in discourse synthesis. TESOL Quarterly, 8(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré, A. (2014). Rhetorical genre theory and academic literacy. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(1), A83–A94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrić, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(4), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.4.309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raković, M., Winne, P. H., Marzouk, Z., & Chang, D. (2021). Automatic identification of knowledge-transforming content in argument essays developed from multiple sources. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 37(4), 903–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Révész, A., Michel, M., & Le, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behavior: A mixed methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900024X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-J., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What’s behind the numbers. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmerón, L., Gil, L., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (2010). Comprehension effects of signalling relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samraj, B. (2004). Discourse features of the student-produced academic research paper: Variations across disciplinary courses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00053-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, M. K. S., & Mohammed, C. (2013). The summary-comparison matrix: A tool for writing the literature review. IEEE International Professional Communication 2013 Conference, Vancouver, BC, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2013.6623891

  • Savage, A., & Mayer, P. (2006). Effective academic writing: The short essay. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1-Educational in Language and Literature, 4(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 231–250). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849508223_016

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2016). Relationships between reading and writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194–207). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2018). Disciplinary literacy. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the language arts (4th ed., pp. 281–308). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, L., Fazel, I., & Kowkabi, N. (2018). Paraphrasing to transform knowledge in advanced graduate student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., & King, J. R. (2013). An examination of veridicality in verbal protocols of language learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(5), 709–720. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.5.709-720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1984). Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing. Monograph. International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1987). Construing constructivism: Reading research in the United States. Poetics, 16(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(87)90024-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 256–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1991). The shaping of meaning: Options in writing the comparison. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(4), 390–418. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1992). Discourse synthesis: Creating texts from texts. In J. R. Hayes, R. E. Young, M. Matchett, M. McCaffrey, C. Cochran, & T. Hajduk (Eds.), Reading empirical research studies: The rhetoric of research (pp. 469–512). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives. New York: University Press.

  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (2016). Reflections on the concept of discourse community. ASP La Revue Du GERS, 69, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarchi, C. (2021). Effects of think-aloud on students’ multiple-documents comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 246–280). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuchman, G. (1994). Historical social science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 306–323). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to write synthesis texts in secondary education: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 401–428. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeulen, N., van den Broek, B., Van Steendam, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020). 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vološinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

  • Voss, J. F., Carretero, M., Kennet, J., & Silfies, L. N. (1994). The collapse of the Soviet Union: A case study of causal reasoning. In J. F. Voss & M. Carretero (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and social sciences (pp. 403–429). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wengelin, A., Frid, J., Johansson, R., & Johansson, V. (2019). Combining keystroke logging and other methods: Towards an experimental environment for writing process research. In E. Lindgren & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 30–49). Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wette, R. (2015). Teacher-led collaborative modeling in academic L2 writing courses. ELT Journal, 69(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, D., Brown, D., Werner, N., Ishizaki, S., & Kaufer, D. (2021). Computer-assisted rhetorical analysis: Instructional design and formative assessment using Docuscope. Journal of Writing Analytics, 5(1), 292–323. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2021.5.1.09

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., & Griffin, T. D. (2018). Effects of instructional conditions 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). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of playing historian on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199611)10:7%3c63::AID-ACP438%3e3.0.CO;2-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H.-C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. C. (2002). Multidimensional taxonomy of learners cognitive processing in discourse synthesis with hypermedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00031-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1988). Writing from primary documents: A way of learning in history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015001002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. (2013). Effect of instruction on ESL students’ synthesis writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., Cheong, C. M., Yu, G., & Liao, X. (2021). Secondary school students’ discourse synthesis performance on Chinese (L1) and English (L2) integrated writing assessments. Reading and Writing, 34(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10065-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, College of Human Sciences and Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

    Nancy Nelson

  2. Childhood Education and Literacy Studies, College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA

    James R. King

Authors
  1. Nancy Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James R. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Nelson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nelson, N., King, J.R. Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Read Writ 36, 769–808 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation