This paper presents a secondary analysis of data collected during an intervention study in which students learnt to synthesise pairs of texts presenting opposite views on controversial issues. The original intervention study included two treatments and examined the effects of two instruction conditions when instructional materials and tasks were held constant. The participants were 114 undergraduate psychology students. The object of the instruction was a guide on strategies for writing an argumentative synthesis text. However, the instruction varied between explicit strategy instruction, consisting of explaining each of the process’s four phases (exploring and identifying arguments and counterarguments, contrasting positions, drawing an integrative conclusion, and organising and revising the final draft), modelled via videos, versus self-study of the written strategy guide. After the initial instruction session, the students in both groups practiced collaboratively writing synthesis texts over two sessions with access to the strategy guide. The primary study compared the individually written pre- and posttest syntheses and found statistically significant differences favouring explicit instruction in both dependent variables: the argumentation coverage and the level of integration. The secondary analysis reported in the current paper involved scoring additional written syntheses produced during two practice sessions and then analysing the data for all time points (pretest, posttest, and the two practice sessions) using structural equation modelling (SEM) to test whether explicit instruction directly or indirectly affected the two indicators of good argumentative synthesis texts—argument coverage and integration—via the following collaborative practice. The results suggested two different learning paths for both dependent variables: explicit instruction is effective for both variables, while collaborative practice only has an additional indirect effect on argument coverage.

中文翻译：

---

综合写作中的学习途径：哪种学习途径对哪种学习成果贡献最大？

本文介绍了一项干预研究期间收集的数据的二次分析，在该研究中，学生学会了合成对有争议的问题持相反观点的文本对。最初的干预研究包括两种治疗方法，并在教学材料和任务保持不变的情况下检查了两种教学条件的影响。参与者是114名心理学专业的学生。该指令的目标是编写论证性综合文本的策略指南。但是，该指令在明确的策略指令之间有所不同，包括通过视频进行建模，这些策略包括解释流程的四个阶段中的每个阶段（探索和识别参数和反参数，对比立场，得出综合结论以及组织和修改最终草案），与书面策略指南的自学相比。初始指导课程结束后，两组学生都可以通过策略指导在两个课程中练习编写综合文本。初步研究比较了单独编写的测试前和测试后的综合结果，发现在统计学上有显着差异，有利于在两个因变量（论证覆盖率和整合水平）方面都进行明确的指导。当前论文中报告的二级分析涉及对两个练习中产生的其他书面综合评分，然后分析所有时间点（测试前，测试后，和两次练习）使用结构方程模型（SEM）来测试显式指令是直接还是间接地通过以下协作练习影响了良好的论证综合文本的两个指标（论点覆盖和整合）。结果为两个因变量建议了两种不同的学习途径：显式指导对两个变量均有效，而协作实践对论点覆盖率仅具有附加的间接影响。