Introduction to the special issue on synthesis tasks: where reading and writing meet

[1]  S. de Maeyer,et al.  Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts , 2022, Written Communication.

[2]  Aleksandra Opacic,et al.  Literacy in vocational education and training: scenario-based reading and writing education , 2022, Reading and Writing.

[3]  Christian Tarchi,et al.  Investigating the effect of thinking dispositions on source-based writing: A randomized control trial , 2022, Thinking Skills and Creativity.

[4]  N. Castells,et al.  Writing a synthesis versus reading: strategies involved and impact on comprehension , 2022, Reading and Writing.

[5]  Sarah Bernolet,et al.  Envisioning multilingualism in source-based writing in L1, L2, and L3: The relation between source use and text quality , 2022, Frontiers in Psychology.

[6]  H. Van den Bergh,et al.  How students perform synthesis tasks: An empirical study into dynamic process configurations. , 2022, Journal of Educational Psychology.

[7]  R. Olmos,et al.  Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice , 2022, Reading and Writing.

[8]  Ángel Valenzuela,et al.  The effect of communicative purpose and reading medium on pauses during different phases of the textualization process , 2022, Reading and Writing.

[9]  James R. King,et al.  Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources , 2022, Reading and Writing.

[10]  Mar Mateos,et al.  Online interventions to help college students to improve the degree of integration of their argumentative synthesis , 2022, Reading & Writing.

[11]  D. van Weijen,et al.  Choosing how to plan informative synthesis texts: Effects of strategy-based interventions on overall text quality , 2021, Reading and Writing.

[12]  D. McNamara,et al.  Source inclusion in synthesis writing: an NLP approach to understanding argumentation, sourcing, and essay quality , 2021, Reading and Writing.

[13]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  The Role of Individual Differences in Sourcing: a Systematic Review , 2021, Educational Psychology Review.

[14]  Asnat R. Zohar,et al.  Mapping multiple documents: From constructing multiple document models to argumentative writing , 2021, Reading and Writing.

[15]  Elena Martín,et al.  Learning science through argumentative synthesis writing and deliberative dialogues: a comprehensive and effective methodology in secondary education , 2021, Reading and Writing.

[16]  L. Allen,et al.  Natural language processing as a technique for conducting text‐based research , 2021, Language and Linguistics Compass.

[17]  E. Chukharev-Hudilainen,et al.  The effect of automated fluency-focused feedback on text production , 2021, Journal of Writing Research.

[18]  Miika Marttunen,et al.  Sourcing on the Internet Examining the Relations Among Different Phases of Online Inquiry , 2021 .

[19]  António Coelho,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Technology-Based Writing Instruction: A Collection of Effective Tools , 2020, Journal of Writing Research.

[20]  Mariëlle Leijten,et al.  Reporting Writing Process Feedback in the Classroom. Using Keystroke Logging Data to Reflect on Writing Processes , 2020, Journal of Writing Research.

[21]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Does reading medium affect processing and integration of textual and pictorial information? A multimedia eye-tracking study , 2020 .

[22]  H. Van den Bergh,et al.  Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? , 2020, Instructional Science.

[23]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  eRevise: Using Natural Language Processing to Provide Formative Feedback on Text Evidence Usage in Student Writing , 2019, AAAI.

[24]  Mariëlle Leijten,et al.  MAPPING MASTER’S STUDENTS’ USE OF EXTERNAL SOURCES IN SOURCE-BASED WRITING IN L1 AND L2 , 2019, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[25]  G. Rijlaarsdam,et al.  In search of an effective source use pattern for writing argumentative and informative synthesis texts , 2019, Reading and Writing.

[26]  D. van Weijen,et al.  Learning to write synthesis texts in secondary education: a review of intervention studies , 2019, Journal of Writing Research.

[27]  Mar Mateos,et al.  Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education , 2019, Reading and Writing.

[28]  D. Rijlaarsdam,et al.  Learning to write synthesis texts: A review of intervention studies , 2019 .

[29]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Using eye-tracking to assess sourcing during multiple document reading: A critical analysis , 2018, frontline Learning Research.

[30]  Sarit Barzilai,et al.  Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices , 2018 .

[31]  Anne Helder,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Discourse Comprehension: Passive Processes, Reader-Initiated Processes, and Evolving Mental Representations , 2017 .

[32]  Chelsea M. Cameron,et al.  The Effects of Instruction on Students' Generation of Self-Questions When Reading Multiple Documents , 2017 .

[33]  E. Steendam,et al.  The effects of different types of video modelling on undergraduate students’ motivation and learning in an academic writing course , 2017 .

[34]  E. V. Steendam.  Een synopsis van schrijfonderwijsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen: waar staan we en waar willen we naartoe? , 2017 .

[35]  Mar Mateos,et al.  Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality , 2015 .

[36]  B. A. Conway,et al.  The effects of laforin, malin, Stbd1, and Ptg deficiencies on heart glycogen levels in Pompe disease mouse models , 2015 .

[37]  Renee Rice Moran,et al.  The Reading and Writing Connection: Merging Two Reciprocal Content Areas , 2014 .

[38]  Luuk Van Waes,et al.  Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources , 2014 .

[39]  S. Ransdell,et al.  The Dynamics of Composing — An Agenda for Research into an Interactive Compensatory Model of Writing: Many Questions, Some Answers Gert Rljlaarsdam & Huub van den Bergh , 2013 .

[40]  Mariëlle Leijten,et al.  Keystroke Logging in Writing Research , 2013 .

[41]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[42]  Isabel Solé,et al.  Integrating Information , 2013 .

[43]  M. Anne Britt,et al.  Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension , 2012 .

[44]  Mar Mateos,et al.  Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels , 2009 .

[45]  Eva Lindgren,et al.  Supporting Learner Reflection in the Language Translation Class , 2009, Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Hum. Dev..

[46]  Mar Mateos,et al.  Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks , 2008 .

[47]  Gert Rijlaarsdam,et al.  Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach , 2006 .

[48]  Barbara Arfe,et al.  Improving the quality of students' academic writing: an intervention study , 2007 .

[49]  M. David Merrill,et al.  First principles of instruction , 2012 .

[50]  G. Rijlaarsdam,et al.  Relations Between Writing Processes and Text Quality: When and How? , 1994 .

[51]  N. Spivey,et al.  Readers as Writers Composing from Sources. , 1989 .