ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Strategic and self-regulated instruction in synthesis tasks in the university context.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study was to improve student skills in writing good-quality synthesis texts through a strategic, self-regulated instruction program aimed at ensuring that students properly activated reading and writing strategies required by the synthesis task. Methods: The sample consisted of 84 university students who were randomly assigned to experimental or control conditions. The experimental group received an instructional program based on the development and self-regulated implementation of reading and writing strategies for producing synthesis texts. The control group received a program involving metacognitive knowledge of various academic text types. Both programs involved eight 60-min sessions, taught by teachers in a compulsory degree subject. For the evaluations, students produced synthesis texts from different source texts. The syntheses were graded considering text product measures: information selection, idea connection, text organization, and holistic quality; and measures of reading (underlining and note-taking) and writing (planning and review) strategies. Results: The results show that the experimental group exhibited greater improvements in synthesis quality and greater improvements in activation of information organization processes, note-taking while reading, and text planning. Discussion: In conclusion, university students can, following implementation of a strategic instructional procedure in the context of a study plan, adapt and re-work their own reading and writing strategies and apply them in a self-regulated manner to synthesis tasks, improving text quality and some of the cognitive processes involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.