Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

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

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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., & 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • *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.

    Article  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, 46(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  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., 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: a theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • *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.

    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 

  • 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 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    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, 35(3), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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).

  • *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 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • *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).

  • *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 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2016). The modern news consumer: news attitudes and practices in the digital era. Washington: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: from text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    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). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    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 (pp. 231–250). Bingley: Emerald Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Work on this project was funded by the I-CORE Program of the Israel Council of Higher Education and the Israel Science Foundation under Grant No. 1716/12.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarit Barzilai.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(PDF 435 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barzilai, S., Zohar, A.R. & Mor-Hagani, S. Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 973–999 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8

Keywords

  • Integration
  • Synthesis
  • Multiple-text comprehension
  • Multiple-source use
  • Instruction