Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using rhetorical devices to improve integration in writing based on multiple texts

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study developed a brief training, the Integrative Writing Training (IWT), to introduce students to two types of rhetorical devices (i.e., direct and indirect integration) that can be used to communicate cross-textual connections through writing. The training did not significantly increase the volume of integration included in students’ written responses, composed based on multiple texts, relative to a control group; although improvements were found when students were compared to others receiving a writing-organization focused training. Directions for future research and, particularly, the need to attend to students’ use of rhetorical devices to communicate integration when writing based on multiple texts are discussed.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barzilai, S., Tal-Savir, D., Abed, F., Mor-Hagani, S., & Zohar, A. R. (2021). Mapping multiple documents: From constructing multiple document models to argumentative writing. Reading and Writing, 36, 809–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10208-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., Thomm, E., & Shlomi-Elooz, T. (2020). Dealing with disagreement: The roles of topic familiarity and disagreement explanation in evaluation of conflicting expert claims and sources. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101367

    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 

  • Braasch, J. L., & Scharrer, L. (2020). The role of cognitive conflict in understanding and learning from multiple perspectives. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, & P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives (pp. 205–222). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L., McCabe, R. M., & Daniel, F. (2016). Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Reading and Writing, 29, 1571–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9609-5

  • Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L., & Salmerón, L. (2020). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts: New opportunities and new challenges. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. V, pp. 79–98). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 313–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490522658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R. L., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman (Ed.), Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., & Martin, E. (2023). Learning science through argumentative synthesis writing and deliberative dialogues: A comprehensive and effective methodology in secondary education. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 965–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10191-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daher, T. A., & Kiewra, K. A. (2016). An investigation of SOAR study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., & Piantedosi, K. W. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, H., & List, A. (2021). Evidence use in argument writing based on multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(4), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, H., & List, A. (2022). Reasoning about text-based evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, 102038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, M. (1989). Unteaching the five-paragraph essay. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 16(4), 231–235. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ405028

  • Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010a). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010b). 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

  • Hopkins, C. (2002). Improving tenth-grade students’ five paragraph essay writing skills using various writing strategies, guided assignments, and portfolios for growth. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471633.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10248-0, >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102018

  • Kullberg, N., Kiili, C., Bråten, I., González-Ibáñez, R., & Leppänen, P. H. (2023). Sixth graders’ selection and integration when writing from multiple online texts. Instructional Science, 51, 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09613-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latini, N., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Salmerón, L. (2019). Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A. (2022). Demonstrating the effectiveness of two scaffolds for fostering students’ domain perspective reasoning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38, 1343–1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00643-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A. (2023). The Limits of Reasoning: Students’ Evaluations of Anecdotal, Descriptive, Correlational, and Causal Evidence. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2174487

  • List, A., Du, H., & Lee, H. Y. (2021). How do students integrate multiple texts? An investigation of top-down processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00497-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., Du, H., & Lyu, B. (2022). Examining undergraduates’ text-based evidence identification, evaluation, and use. Reading and Writing, 35(5), 1059–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10219-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019b). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, M., Villalón, R., Martínez-Álvarez, I., & Mateos, M. (2023). Online interventions to help college students to improve the degree of integration of their argumentative synthesis. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 937–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, C. T., Kock, N., & Cass, J. (2011). Pain and pleasure in short essay writing: Factors predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.5.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, I., Mateos Sanz, M. D. 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

  • Mason, A. E., Braasch, J. L., Greenberg, D., Kessler, E. D., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2023). Comprehending multiple controversial texts about childhood vaccinations: Topic beliefs and integration instructions. Reading Psychology, 44(4), 436–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2156952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. S., Yan, E. F., Allen, L. K., Sonia, A. N., Magliano, J. P., & McNamara, D. S. (2022). On the basis of source: Impacts of individual differences on multiple-document integrated reading and writing tasks. Learning and Instruction, 79, 101599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. G., Schumacher, G. M., & Carlson, B. W. (1993). Writing from sources: A structure-mapping model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2023). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, T. E. (1991). Breaking the five-paragraph-theme barrier. The English Journal, 80(1), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/818100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high-and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 594–600. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194960

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Primor, L., Yeari, M., & Katzir, T. (2021). Choosing the right question: The effect of different question types on multiple text integration. Reading and Writing, 34, 1539–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10127-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In G. Schraw, M. McCrudden, & J. P. Magliano (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Information Age Publishing.

  • Schoor, C., Rouet, J. F., Artelt, C., Mahlow, N., Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U., & Goldhammer, F. (2021). Readers’ perceived task demands and their relation to multiple document comprehension strategies and outcome. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, 102018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, L. H. (2014). Challenging the tyranny of the five-paragraph essay: Teachers and students as semiotic boundary workers in classroom and digital space. Literacy, 48(3), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, B. I. (2007). Defending the five-paragraph essay. English Journal, 97(2), 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (2006). In defense of the five-paragraph essay. English Journal, 95(4), 16–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonia, A. N., Magliano, J. P., McCarthy, K. S., Creer, S. D., McNamara, D. S., & Allen, L. K. (2022). Integration in multiple-document comprehension: A natural language processing approach. Discourse Processes, 59(5–6), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2079320

    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 

  • Tarchi, C., & Villalón, R. (2021). The influence of thinking dispositions on integration and recall of multiple texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1498–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2016). How source information shapes lay interpretations of science conflicts: Interplay between sourcing, conflict explanation, source evaluation, and claim evaluation. Reading and Writing, 29, 1629–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesley, K. (2000). The ill effects of the five paragraph theme. The English Journal, 90(1), 57–60.

    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 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Eunseo Lee, Alexandra List & Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca

  2. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Hye Yeon Lee

  3. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Hongcui Du

Authors
  1. Eunseo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra List
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hye Yeon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hongcui Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hye Yeon Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Eunseo Lee. Dept. of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. Email: eunseolee@psu.edu.

Current themes of research:

Designing scaffolds for learning from reading and writing.

Automated feedback on students’ science writing and its effects on science learning.

Higher-order reasoning (e.g., problem-solving, analogical reasoning) in STEM + CS education.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Hattan, C., Lee, E., & List, A. (2023). Comprehension, Diagram Analysis, Integration, and Interest: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Reading Psychology, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2187907

Kim, C., Puntambekar, S., Lee, E., Gnesdilow, D., Dey, I., Cang, X., … & Passonneau, R. (2023, July). Understanding of a law of science and its relation to science writing with automated feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

Kim, C., Dinç, E., Lee, E., Baabdullah, A., Zhang, A. Y., & Belland, B. R. (2023). Revisiting Analogical Reasoning in Computing Education: Use of Similarities Between Robot Programming Tasks in Debugging. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331221142912.

Kim, C., Belland, B. R., Baabdullah, A., Lee, E., Dinç, E., & Zhang, A. Y. (2021). An ethnomethodological study of abductive reasoning while tinkering. AERA Open, 7, 23,328,584,211,008,111.

Alexandra List. Dept. of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. Email: azl261@psu.edu.

Current themes of research:

Critical digital literacy and learning on the Internet.

Learning from multiple texts and multiple resources.

Higher-order reasoning processes (e.g., critique, evaluation) in learning from texts.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003

List, A., Du, H., & Lee, H. Y. (2021). How do students integrate multiple texts? An investigation of top-down processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00497-y

List, A., & Du, H. (2021). Reasoning beyond history: Examining students’ strategy use when completing a multiple text task addressing a controversial topic in education. Reading and Writing, 34, 1003–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10095-5

Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca. Dept. of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. Email: gsc5138@psu.edu.

Current themes of research:

Academic writing.

Writing from multiple texts.

Discourse synthesis.

ESL writing.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Meyer, B. J., Campos Oaxaca, G. S, & Yu, J. (2022). Text structure: Reading, writing, cross language perspectives. (R. Horowitz, Ed.). In R. Horowitz (Ed.), The handbook of international research on writing. Routledge.

List, A., & Campos Oaxaca, G. (2023). Comprehension and critique: an examination of students evaluations of information in texts. Reading and Writing.

List, A., Campos Oaxaca, G. S., Lee, E., Du, H., & Lee, H. Y. (2021). Examining perceptions, selections, and products in undergraduates’ learning from multiple resources. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1555–1584.

Hye Yeon Lee. Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States. Email: hyeyeon.lee@bme.gatech.edu.

Current themes of research:

Learning from multiple texts and multiple resources.

Self-Regulated learning in multiple text use.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003

Lee, H. Y., & List, A. (2023). The role of relevance determinations in multiple text reading and writing: an investigation of the MD-TRACE. Discourse Processes, 60(1), 42–72.

Hongcui Du. Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States. Email: hdu@fsu.edu.

Current themes of research:

Multiple text reading and writing.

Evidence-based reasoning.

Intervention.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Du, H., & List, A. (2022). Reasoning about text-based evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, 102,038.

Du, H., & List, A. (2021). Evidence use in argument writing based on multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(4), 715–735.

Appendix A. Sample training materials

Appendix A. Sample training materials

From the Integrative Writing Training:

figure afigure a

From the Organization Condition:

figure bfigure b

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, E., List, A., Campos Oaxaca, G.S. et al. Using rhetorical devices to improve integration in writing based on multiple texts. Eur J Psychol Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00778-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00778-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation