Skip to main content
Log in

Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels

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

Abstract

The production of written syntheses, which requires reading various sources and integrating information from these sources into one’s own text, has been characterised as a potentially useful task for promoting constructive learning. This article describes research aimed at examining and characterising written syntheses and the processes involved in producing them.

A case study was carried out of 45 students from four different educational levels (ranging from secondary school to university) performing synthesis tasks set by their teachers. An analysis was made of the synthesis tasks set and the syntheses produced, the prototypical procedures carried out at each educational level, and the quality of the written products.

The results corroborate the view that producing syntheses is difficult even for university students with a high degree of reading and writing competence. They also show that the difficulty level of the texts and tasks set by the teachers is generally high and that this difficulty increases as students go up the educational ladder. It was found that the younger students adopted more sequential procedures, whereas more experienced students employed more recursive approaches. It was concluded that there is a need to teach students the epistemic uses of reading and writing.

Résumé

L’élaboration d’un texte de synthèse, qui exige de lire et d’intégrer l’information provenant de diverses sources dans un texte propre, a été caractérisée comme étant une tache potentiellement adéquate pour promouvoir l’apprentissage constructif. Cet article est la description d’une recherche dont les objectifs prétendaient découvrir et caractériser les productions écrites ainsi que les processus impliqués dans l’élaboration de la synthèse. Pour cette recherche, une étude de cas a été menée sur 45 étudiants de quatre niveaux d’enseignement différents (depuis l’enseignement secondaire jusqu’à l’Université) qui réalisaient des taches de synthèse proposées par leur professeur. On a analysé les textes ainsi que les taches de synthèse proposés, les procédures de réalisation prototypiques de chaque niveau d’enseignement, et la qualité des productions écrites. Les résultats corroborent l’idée de la difficulté de la synthèse, y compris pour des étudiants d’université et lorsque la compétence en lecture et en écriture est élevée. Ils montrent parallèlement que la difficulté des taches et des textes proposés par les professeurs est en général élevée, et que cette difficulté augmente avec le niveau d’enseignement. On observe que les élèves les plus jeunes adoptent des procédures plus séquentielles, alors que les plus expérimentés sont plus récursifs. On conclut par la nécessité d’enseigner aux élèves et étudiants les usages épistémiques de la lecture et de l’écriture.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bracewell, R.J., Frederiksen, C.H., & Frederiksen, J.E. (1982). Cognitive processes in composing and comprehending.Educational Psychologist, 17, 146–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, J.T. (1993).Schools for thought. A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coté, N., Goldman, S., & Saul, E.U. (1998). Students making sense of informational texts: Relations between processing and representation.Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.

    Article  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.C. Peck (Eds.),Reading to write. Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35–75). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M.J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W.C. (1990).Reading-to-write. Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González Nieto, L. (2002). El aprendizaje de la Lengua. In A. Marchesi & E. Martín (Eds.),Evaluación de la educación secundaria. FotografÍa de una etapa polémica (pp. 179–196). Madrid: Ediciones SM

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenski, S.D., & Johns, J.L. (1997). Patterns of reading-to-write.Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 15–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from multiple sources.Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 227–248.

    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, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risemberg, R. (1996). Reading to write: Self-regulated learning strategies when writing essays from sources.Reading Research and Instruction, 35, 365–383.

    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, 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solé, I., Mateos, M., Miras, M., Martín, E., Castells, N., Cuevas, I., & Gràcia, M. (2005). Lectura, escritura y adquisición de conocimientos en educación secundaria y educación universitaria.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 28, 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N.N. (1997).The constructivist metaphor. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R.J., & Shanahan, T. (1996). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, PB. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (vol. 2, pp. 246–280). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R.J., O’Flahavan, J.F., & McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically.Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä. (2001). Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In P. Tynjälä K. Lonka (Eds.),Writing as a learning tool. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    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, 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research project was funded under the General Programme for the Promotion of Knowledge 2005–2008 by the Spanish Ministry of Education (SEJ2005-08434-C02-01/EDUC; SEJ2005-08434-C02-02/EDUC).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mateos, M., Solé, I. Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. Eur J Psychol Educ 24, 435–451 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760

Key words

Navigation