Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices

  • Sarit Barzilai
  • Asnat R. Zohar
  • Shiri Mor-Hagani
Review Article

Abstract

The ability to meaningfully and critically integrate multiple texts is vital for twenty-first-century literacy. The aim of this systematic literature review is to synthesize empirical studies in order to examine the current state of knowledge on how intertextual integration can be promoted in educational settings. We examined the disciplines in which integration instruction has been studied, the types of texts and tasks employed, the foci of integration instruction, the instructional practices used, integration measures, and instructional outcomes. The studies we found involved students from 5th grade to university, encompassed varied disciplines, and employed a wide range of task and text types. We identified a variety of instructional practices, such as collaborative discussions with multiple texts, explicit instruction of integration, modeling of integration, uses of graphic organizers, and summarization and annotation of single texts. Our review indicates that integration can be successfully taught, with medium to large effect sizes. Some research gaps include insufficient research with young students; inadequate consideration of new text types; limited attention to students’ understandings of the value of integration, integration criteria, and text structures; and lack of research regarding how to promote students’ motivation to engage in intertextual integration.

Keywords

Integration Synthesis Multiple-text comprehension Multiple-source use Instruction 

Supplementary material

10648_2018_9436_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (435 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 435 kb)

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review.

  1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., & DRLRL. (2012). Reading into the future: competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Argelagós, E., & Pifarré, M. (2012). Improving information problem solving skills in secondary education through embedded instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 515–526.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.636495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (d-isc) model: basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. *Brand-Gruwel, S., & Wopereis, I. (2006). Integration of the information problem-solving skill in an educational programme: the effects of learning with authentic tasks. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 4, 243–263.Google Scholar
  11. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1207–1217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Sourcing in text comprehension: a review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7.
  13. *Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 46(1), 48–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bråten, I., Braasch, J., & Salmerón, L. (2018). 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). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (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). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students’ essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3, 4), 359–374.Google Scholar
  20. 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). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: the role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 104–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: a theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Bromme, R., Stadtler, M., & Scharrer, L. (2018). The provenance of certainty: multiple source use and the public engagement with science. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 269–284). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. *Cameron, C., Van Meter, P., & Long, V. A. (2017). The effects of instruction on students’ generation of self-questions when reading multiple documents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 334–351.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1182884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: applying the air model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information (pp. 425–454). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. *Darowski, E. S., Patson, N. D., & Helder, E. (2016). Implementing a synthesis tutorial to improve student literature reviews. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 35(3), 94–108.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2016.1243437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. *De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139–156.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *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, 35(3), 174–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *De La Paz, S., & Wissinger, D. R. (2015). Effects of genre and content knowledge on historical thinking with academically diverse high school students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 110–129.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.876228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9), 917–928.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. *Dutt-Doner, K. M., Cook-Cottone, C., & Allen, S. (2007). Improving classroom instruction: understanding the developmental nature of analyzing primary sources. RMLE Online, 30(6), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2007.11462039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. *Gagnière, L., Betrancourt, M., & Détienne, F. (2012). When metacognitive prompts help information search in collaborative setting. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 73–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2011.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255–269.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading—from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., et al. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: a conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. *González-Lamas, J., Cuevas, I., & Mateos, M. (2016). Arguing from sources: design and evaluation of a programme to improve written argumentation and its impact according to students’ writing beliefs/argumentar a partir de fuentes: Diseño y evaluación de un programa para mejorar la argumentación escrita y su impacto en función de las creencias acerca de la escritura académica que mantienen los estudiantes. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 39(1), 49–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. *Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 141–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01536.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. *Hagerman, M. S. (2017). Disrupting students’ online reading and research habits: the links intervention and its impact on multiple internet text integration skills. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 18(1).Google Scholar
  45. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. *Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36(1), 53–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, H.-J. J., & Millis, K. (2006). The influence of sourcing and relatedness on event integration. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 51–65.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4101_4
  49. *Kingsley, T. L., Cassady, J. C., & Tancock, S. M. (2015). Successfully promoting 21st century online research skills: interventions in 5th-grade classrooms. Reading Horizons, 54(2).Google Scholar
  50. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. *Kobayashi, K. (2009). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311–324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9041-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. *Kobayashi, K. (2015). Learning from conflicting texts: the role of intertextual conflict resolution in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 36(6), 519–544.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2014.926304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26(4–5), 335–362.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710500285870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., & O’Neil, M. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In L. S. Rush, A. J. Eakle, & A. Berger (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: what research reveals for classroom practices (pp. 37–68). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  56. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: a dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. *Linderholm, T., Kwon, H., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). Instructions that enhance multiple-text comprehension for college readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 45(1), 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2014.906269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. *Lundstrom, K., Diekema, A. R., Leary, H., Haderlie, S., & Holliday, W. (2015). Teaching and learning information synthesis: an intervention and rubric based assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. *Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: how metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 51–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: a study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 435–451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03178760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. *Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00547.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officer. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts. Washington DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  64. *Naumann, A. B., Wechsung, I., & Krems, J. F. (2009). How to support learning from multiple hypertext sources. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 639–646.  https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.3.639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pew Research Center. (2016). The modern news consumer: news attitudes and practices in the digital era. Washington: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  67. *Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. *Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: a document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.634081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: from text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  70. 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). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  71. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In P. van den Broek (Ed.), Learning to read in a digital world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  74. *Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02505026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. *Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: the effect of explicit instruction on college students' processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(1), 5–33.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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 (pp. 231–250). Bingley: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. *Shanahan, C. (2016). Deepening what it means to read (and write) like a historian: progressions of instruction across a school year in an eleventh grade us history class. The History Teacher, 49(2), 241–270.Google Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. *Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 93–116.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (2018). Learning from multiple documents: how can we foster multiple document literacy skills in a sustainable way? In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: theory, research, and practice. Singapore: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. *Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456.  https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. *VanSledright, B. A. (2002). Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1089–1115.  https://doi.org/10.3102/000283120390041089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. *Weston-Sementelli, J. L., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Comprehension and writing strategy training improves performance on content-specific source-based writing tasks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education., 28(1), 106–137.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0127-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. *Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: a study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.83.1.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. *Wissinger, D. R., & De La Paz, S. (2016). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written historical arguments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 43–59.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. *Wopereis, I., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Vermetten, Y. (2008). The effect of embedded instruction on solving information problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 738–752.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations