what is the function of the thesis statement in expository writing

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Expository Essays

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

What is an expository essay?

The expository essay is a genre of essay that requires the student to investigate an idea, evaluate evidence, expound on the idea, and set forth an argument concerning that idea in a clear and concise manner. This can be accomplished through comparison and contrast, definition, example, the analysis of cause and effect, etc.

Please note : This genre is commonly assigned as a tool for classroom evaluation and is often found in various exam formats.

The structure of the expository essay is held together by the following.

• A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first paragraph of the essay.

It is essential that this thesis statement be appropriately narrowed to follow the guidelines set forth in the assignment. If the student does not master this portion of the essay, it will be quite difficult to compose an effective or persuasive essay.

• Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.

Transitions are the mortar that holds the foundation of the essay together. Without logical progression of thought, the reader is unable to follow the essay’s argument, and the structure will collapse.

• Body paragraphs that include evidential support.

Each paragraph should be limited to the exposition of one general idea. This will allow for clarity and direction throughout the essay. What is more, such conciseness creates an ease of readability for one’s audience. It is important to note that each paragraph in the body of the essay must have some logical connection to the thesis statement in the opening paragraph.

• Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).

Often times, students are required to write expository essays with little or no preparation; therefore, such essays do not typically allow for a great deal of statistical or factual evidence.

• A bit of creativity!

Though creativity and artfulness are not always associated with essay writing, it is an art form nonetheless. Try not to get stuck on the formulaic nature of expository writing at the expense of writing something interesting. Remember, though you may not be crafting the next great novel, you are attempting to leave a lasting impression on the people evaluating your essay.

• A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of the evidence provided.

It is at this point of the essay that students will inevitably begin to struggle. This is the portion of the essay that will leave the most immediate impression on the mind of the reader. Therefore, it must be effective and logical. Do not introduce any new information into the conclusion; rather, synthesize and come to a conclusion concerning the information presented in the body of the essay.

A complete argument

Perhaps it is helpful to think of an essay in terms of a conversation or debate with a classmate. If I were to discuss the cause of the Great Depression and its current effect on those who lived through the tumultuous time, there would be a beginning, middle, and end to the conversation. In fact, if I were to end the exposition in the middle of my second point, questions would arise concerning the current effects on those who lived through the Depression. Therefore, the expository essay must be complete, and logically so, leaving no doubt as to its intent or argument.

The five-paragraph Essay

A common method for writing an expository essay is the five-paragraph approach. This is, however, by no means the only formula for writing such essays. If it sounds straightforward, that is because it is; in fact, the method consists of:

• an introductory paragraph
• three evidentiary body paragraphs
• a conclusion

7 Essay Types and Their Purposes

Have you ever struggled with the purpose of an essay?

For some, it may be a question of “what’s the point of all this essay writing?”

For others, the word purpose is synonymous with type , and they simply need to determine what kind of essay to write in order to achieve their goal (or ace an assignment).

In either case, we hope to help you today.

What Is the Purpose of an Essay in Education?

Does it seem like every time you turn around, someone’s asking (okay, telling) you to write an essay?

That’s because there is a very good reason. Essay writing is an integral part of education that serves several purposes that may surprise you.

First, essay writing helps improve your spelling, grammar, and punctuation. However, those benefits are more on the superficial side. Necessary, yes, but writing an essay provides far more value than that. 

Look at the many benefits you stand to gain:

• Writing in essay format teaches you how to communicate more effectively. 
• You’ll learn to organize your thoughts and fine-tune your reasoning. 
• Essay writing teaches you valuable research skills as you find and filter facts to support your viewpoint. 
• As you learn to express yourself better, you’ll become more concise and precise in your language. 

You are essentially practicing the ability to explain yourself clearly and articulate your thoughts. This will serve you well as you interact with future partners, bosses, and others.

ENTER THE GIVEAWAY!

The right topic is critical to the success of any essay. Enter to win a copy of our newest resource:

170 Good Argument Topics for High School Essays & Debate

Points to Consider as You Craft Your Purpose Statement

Now that we’ve discussed the purpose of essay writing, let’s transition into learning more about the purpose of each individual essay. 

It’s important to know your essay’s purpose before ever putting pen to paper.  

Once you’ve decided on an objective for each essay, you’ll want to let your reader know your intent right away.  

To do that, you need to learn how to state the purpose of an essay effectively. This is called, appropriately enough, a “purpose statement.”

Unlike a thesis statement, which lays out your topic and arguments in your introduction, a purpose statement is more about how you intend to do that. 

Are you defending a stance in hopes of convincing someone to take action? Tell your reader that’s what you plan to do. 

Are you hoping to teach people how to implement an idea or produce something? State upfront that the purpose of this essay is instructional. 

A purpose statement includes defining the scope of the paper, along with sharing the focus of the essay and the direction in which you plan to take it.

Let me pause here and say something that may sound odd:

Your purpose statement doesn’t necessarily have to be used in your essay. It may, especially if it doubles as your thesis statement, but defining your essay’s purpose is more for your own direction. 

Clearly defining what you are doing and why will help you craft a coherent essay that achieves its goal. 

7 Types of Essays: Their Purposes and Examples

After clarifying the purpose of your essay, you’ll want to choose an essay genre to achieve your intention effectively—if it hasn’t be chosen for you, that is. 

(If you aren’t sure what to write about, get help with choosing a topic here .)

There are several essay types that help communicate different ideas, so it’s helpful to know which type lends itself to the best outcome.  

To help you decide, we’ve laid out seven common essay types and their purposes:

One reason to write an essay is to teach your reader new or changing information on a topic. 

The purpose of an informative essay could be to provide a deeper understanding of a well-known subject, but it can also introduce the reader to an unfamiliar topic. 

This would be a type of educational essay —one meant to use facts and data to inform your audience. This is not an essay designed to persuade the reader or evoke emotion.

Another form of an educational essay is one designed to teach a process or simplify a difficult subject. 

One function of an expository essay , as it’s also known, is to explain a topic, so it’s important for you to be familiarize yourself with the topic first before digging into the writing. 

You can’t clarify what you don’t know.

Sometimes an essay is written in response to someone else’s ideas. Depending on the topic, this can be an academic essay or less formal analysis of some sort (like a personal reaction).

In either case, the purpose of a response essay is to share your own perspective with the reader.

The ideas you’re responding to can come from a body of work, a literary analysis, a news story, or a statement from a public figure. It can even be in response to a commonly held opinion or belief.

In a response essay, you’ll begin by providing an overview of the subject to which you’re replying. You would then continue this type of essay by providing your opinion backed by research and facts. 

4. Persuade

The purpose of persuasive writing is to use logic to convince someone to react one way or another. 

You may include a specific call to action, such as exhorting the reader to petition their local government for positive change. 

Crafting a persuasive essay is similar to preparing for a debate but without the opposing party. It typically involves a strong opinion that is so well researched and backed by facts that it influences the reader to change their own opinion. 

5. Entertain

While most people think of formal, academic papers when they hear the word “essay,” you can also write an essay solely to entertain your reader.

Essays designed to entertain, such as narratives, aim to elicit some sort of emotional response from the reader. The purpose of descriptive text in this type of essay is to bring forth a clear picture in the reader’s mind. 

Careful choice of words is critical in this type of essay. You will use them to trigger some form of emotion in the heart of your reader.

6. Contrast

I’m sure you’ve seen or heard of an essay type called “Compare and Contrast.”  

This is a common type of essay in which the writer discusses the differences or similarities between separate ideas or topics. 

For example, you may be asked to compare two works of literature. On the other hand, the purpose of your essay may be to shed light on the pros and cons of two choices, such as attending college vs. heading straight into a career. 

If it’s a contrast piece, you will want to note less obvious differences between your two topics. For example, everyone knows that college costs money while working pays money. 

But what are the more subtle differences that the reader may not have considered? It’s your job to clearly identify those distinctions.

In a review essay, the writer summarizes and critically evaluates a body of work, usually a novel, poem, or film. 

The review essay uses the writer’s own perspective of the work to talk at length about its strengths and weaknesses.

Once you solidify the purpose of an essay, your first two steps are clear:

First, you will craft either a purpose statement for your own clarification or a thesis statement to use in the introduction, which should present your essay’s topic in an intriguing way.

Then, you’ll choose an appropriate vehicle to convey that message effectively by choosing an essay type that serves your purpose well. 

(Once you know what type of essay you’ll be writing, discover how to start an essay effectively .)

If you need help polishing your essay writing, don’t miss the incredible tales and tips found in Philosophy Adventure :

Teach Your Students to Write Skillfully

As they explore the history of ideas!

About The Author

Jordan Mitchell

How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Conclusion

• Emily Scott

It can be difficult to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion. It is the final part of the task, where you connect the concepts and themes you have covered in your study. Here's your chance to highlight the importance of your work and make a lasting impact. Let us examine each stage in greater detail so that you can ensure your work ends on the right note.

1. Restate Your Thesis

Restate your thesis or the main research topic at the very beginning. This shows how your work has changed and serves to remind readers of its main points. Importantly, you should not just paste your original thesis statement into a new document. Rewrite it instead to take into account the new understandings and insights that came about from your research.

For example, rewrite your thesis statement to show if your research confirmed or disproved your original theory, which was a theory regarding something particular. By doing this, you are indicating the path you have walked by drawing a line from the start to the finish of your research.

2. Summarize Key Findings

It is time to rewrite your thesis and then provide an overview of the key conclusions. This is an important phase since it provides the reader with an overview of the findings and conclusions of your research. But do not get too specific—this is not the place for fresh information or a thorough justification. Rather, pay attention to the most important lessons that are connected to your thesis.

To summarise each major fact, consider using bullet points or short, well-written words. The objective is to highlight the arguments that directly support your thesis or research question and to remind readers of the supporting data you have provided.

3. Discuss the Significance

Analyze why your findings are important in this part. In the context of your field, what do they mean? In what ways do they advance our understanding of the world, or provide fresh perspectives? This is your opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of your work beyond its academic  application.

Consider the additional effects of your findings. Does it recommend any new best practices, for example? Does it contradict or confirm accepted theories? You highlight the influence of your work by talking about its relevance, which is important in academic and professional settings.

4. Address Limitations                                               

It is critical to note in your conclusion that no study is perfect. Recognizing one's limitations shows reality and intellectual integrity. Think about any limitations you encountered, related to methodology, sample size, scope, or outside variables, that could have affected your findings.

This acknowledgement is about being open and honest, not about minimizing your work. By talking about your work's limitations, you might offer suggestions for how future research can expand on it or address its limitations. It also demonstrates your awareness of the complex nature of research and your reality regarding the conclusions that your study can and cannot reach.

5. Suggestions for Future Research

This part allows you to make suggestions for future research directions, building on the limits debate. What questions still need to be answered? Which subjects need more research? By making suggestions, you support further research and demonstrate how your work fits into a more general academic debate.

Your suggestions must be useful and closely connected to what you discovered. This is not the place for proposals that are too general or abstract. Rather, concentrate on particular areas where more research would be useful and provide specific instances of how academics could build on your work.

6. Conclude with a Strong Final Statement

This is your last chance to make a lasting impression with your message. It should serve as an appealing conclusion that summarises the main ideas of your thesis or dissertation. This might be an inspiring quote, a call to action, or a thought-provoking statement that captures the essence of your business.

Your readers should be struck by this remark and find it stimulating as they follow your thesis through. It can be an in-depth examination of the effects of your research or a refutation of a popular belief. The secret is to close on a high note that highlights the importance of your results.

7. Keep It Brief

Even though it could be tempting to go into great detail, the conclusion should still be brief. It serves as the thesis's conclusion, summarising and bringing everything together. Make sure every word contributes to the overall meaning of your message by aiming for clarity.

It is a good idea to limit the conclusion of your thesis or dissertation to between five and seven percent of its overall length. By doing this, you can make sure that your summary is short and free of unnecessary details or new information. A short finish has a higher chance of making an impression.

Tips for Writing Your Conclusion

Reflect on the tone of your thesis: Your conclusion should have a tone that is in line with the remainder of your thesis. Keep the professional, academic tone of your work throughout the conclusion.

Link back to your introduction: Referencing topics or queries from your opening will help to bring the piece to a satisfying conclusion. This provides an organized structure for your thesis.

Proofread carefully: Typographical or error-filled conclusions may reduce the effect of your work. Spend some time editing and making sure your ending is flawless.

Seek feedback: Consult with your classmates or supervisor for comments before submitting your conclusion. This can guarantee the effectiveness of your conclusion and offer insightful information.

Writing a strong conclusion is an essential component of any dissertation or thesis. This is your opportunity to make a lasting impact and highlight the significance of your study. You can write a conclusion that successfully explains your work and encourages more research in your field by following these recommendations and thoroughly completing each phase.

1. Why is the conclusion so important in a thesis or dissertation?

The conclusion is your final opportunity to summarize your work and emphasize its importance. It brings closure to your research and leaves a lasting impression.

2. How long should the conclusion be?

A common guideline is to keep it between 5-7% of the total length of your thesis or dissertation.

3. Can I introduce new information in the conclusion?

No, the conclusion is not for new information or arguments. It's meant to summarize and bring closure to your work.

4. How should I address limitations in the conclusion?

Acknowledge specific limitations, discuss their impact on your findings, and suggest how future research could address them.

5. What makes a strong final statement in a thesis or dissertation conclusion?

A strong final statement is memorable and impactful. It can be a thought-provoking insight or a call to action, leaving a lasting impression.

Book Your Assignment

For your response..

We will revert back soon!! Your information is 100% safe with us.

Recent Posts

Models in Marketing Communication

Saudi students guide to studying abroad, budgeting tips for college students, how to choose your college courses.

• Academic (29)
• Accounting (25)
• Assignments (82)
• Biochemistry (1)
• Business (8)
• Business Law (2)
• Case Study (4)
• Celebration (22)
• Communication (1)
• Computer Network (2)
• Computer Science (18)
• Coursework Help (1)
• Cybersecurity (1)
• Dissertation (12)
• Economics (18)
• Engineering (21)
• English (5)
• Essay Writing (50)
• Events (34)
• Finance (12)
• Holmes Institute (1)
• Homework (6)
• International Students (2)
• Leadership (1)
• Lifestyle (8)
• Management (39)
• Marketing (14)
• Mass Communication (2)
• Mathematics (9)
• Medical (6)
• Miscellaneous (21)
• News and Information (23)
• Nursing (11)
• Perdisco (2)
• Programming (18)
• Proofreading Services (1)
• Science (19)
• Social Science (4)
• Statistics (3)
• Study Abroad (5)
• Taxation (2)

FastAdvices

The best adviser for everything

What is the description of expository?

Table of Contents

• 1 What is the description of expository?
• 2 Which one is the main characteristic of an expository text?
• 3 How do you write a thesis statement for an expository essay?
• 4 What is the main purpose in expository writing?
• 5 What is expository paragraph PDF?
• 6 What is a thesis statement for an expository essay?
• 7 What is expository thesis statement?

The definition of expository is something intended to explain or describe. An essay that is intended to explain a series of events is an example of an expository essay.

Which one is the main characteristic of an expository text?

What are the characteristics of expository text? Expository text is written to provide information about a topic, including a historical or scientific topic. Precise, focused on the subject, uses domain specific vocabulary, rather than figurative language. Expository text is often written in paragraphs.

How do you write an expository text?

Write your expository essay in MLA format and follow a basic five paragraph structure….How to Write an Expository Essay

• Prewrite and Outline.
• Write an Introductory Paragraph.
• Write Three Body Paragraphs.
• Write a Concluding Paragraph.
• Revise and Proofread.

How do you write a thesis statement for an expository essay?

If you are writing an expository essay, your thesis statement should explain to the reader what she will learn in your essay. For example: The United States spends more money on its military budget than all the industrialized nations combined. Gun-related homicides and suicides are increasing after years of decline.

What is the main purpose in expository writing?

The purpose of expository writing is to present a balanced, objective description of a topic. The format of an expository essay allows for the clear and logical explanation of complex information instead of proving a point or providing the writer’s personal opinion on a subject.

What is the features of expository writing?

Expository writing explains an idea and thing with a thorough analysis. It is written to instruct or enlighten people and also includes relevant evidences and mainly, it gives a clear conception about the topic. It is a type of essay that requires a thorough investigation, along with the delineation of the idea.

What is expository paragraph PDF?

The expository paragraph is the presentation of information, opinions, or ideas. It exposes. something about a topic. There are two types of expository paragraphs:

What is a thesis statement for an expository essay?

An expository thesis statement states the topic of your paper and lists the key aspects of your topic that will be discussed in the paper.

How do you write an expository statement?

What is expository thesis statement?

Share this post

Privacy overview.

Photo: Dylan Gillis

|    Home » Discussion » Discussion forum

Discussion forum.

Say aloud your digital design worries!

Choose the discussion channel according to your own department.

You can use Finnish or English here.

tips on writing a thesis statement

Quote from Guest on 19.4.2024, 01:25 Quincy Armstrong from Pearland was looking for tips on writing a thesis statement Fabian McGrath found the answer to a search query tips on writing a thesis statement [b]ESSAYERUDITE.COM[/b] [url=https://essayerudite.com][img]http://essayerudite.com/images/banner/500x500.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://essayerudite.com]tips on writing a thesis statement[/url] scope limitations thesis ielts sample problem solution essay how to write an autobiography for psychology write me best expository essay online how to write in chinese running script how to write on someones wall in new facebook the case against homework friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies essay twenty20 world cup 2009 essay esl dissertation abstract editing website gb custom problem solving editor website for school samples of resume for b tech students senior operation executive resume free resume templates for laborers va tech career cover letter voyages doctor dolittle book report medical device sales resume format university of michigan essay examples essay king tut title page format apa 6th edition planning a topic sentence for an essay how to write a price increase letter esl personal essay ghostwriting website for university intestinal papers parasite research joan didion essay sacrament how to write javascript code in asp net custom masters dissertation introduction advice custom homework writing site treasury analyst resume of professional article review editing service usa dissertation on mutual funds esl papers writers for hire write a cause and effect essay on divorce website content writing services research proposal premarital counseling best report ghostwriters websites for university top book review ghostwriter for hire for phd cheap critical thinking writer services for phd political science essay writer website knowledge management dissertation pdf esl paper ghostwriting sites for college business plan template internet businesses tricks to shorten an essay top dissertation writer site online resume group home manager resume support desktop who to write cover letter to example icu nursing resume research paper on breat implants describing current job on resume custom critical thinking editor site uk blackness visible essays on philosophy and race summary cheap speech editor site for phd homework aol how to write job application e mails free essays for college admission how to write long numbers junior hedge fund analyst resume barman cover letter essay on peacock in sanskrit book report assignments top admission paper writer websites for college resume by pci pci e lan bolker writing your dissertation sex education research papers sqa intermediate 2 maths past papers answers essay on relation of maths in other subjects skills listings for resume how to write a book online essay on disability is not an inability type my drama argumentative essay sample method section for research papers how to write a thesis for essay example of formal definition essay type my investments biography custom essay ghostwriting sites uk free gmat essays download dissertation writers websites us easy homework ideas how to find resume templates on ms word research paper topics education early childhood how to write a paper on music science how to write an abstract houston resume writer top blog post writers service for mba essentials of academic writing with independence comes increased responsibility essays help me write top phd essay on hillary clinton custom research proposal ghostwriting websites usa thesis sleep apnea resume format examples templates sports bar restaurant business plan template voice analyst resume how to write dossier write english essay online asp on error resume next scope research cover letter template essay riding in cars with boys unredeemed captive book report professional thesis proposal writers sites for phd best resume writers website uk relationship between shylock and antonio essay work thesis creating a web cite sample thesis on hrm esl resume ghostwriters services online top admission essay editing service ca objective for resume in healthcare field do my trigonometry movie review student essay winners homework proofreading for hire online dissertation template university of phoenix recruiter resume database write a personal narrative graphic organizer essays about video games benefits how to write html code in javascript function man and woman relationship essay type my popular best essay on presidential elections sap dms resume pro school prayer essay [url=https://176mw.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=138&pid=456822&page=2270&extra=page%3D1#pid456822]resume cover letter for a first job[/url] [url=http://forum.softhistory.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2028]resume on[/url] [url=http://forumgjw.8u.cz/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=679]examples graduate school essays psychology[/url] [url=https://heathenboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=95339]top thesis ghostwriting sites au[/url] [url=https://leeholdsworth.com/index.php?topic=42637.new#new]cfo resume examples[/url] [url=https://forexforum.cz/members/92341-stevenpn]professional expository essay writers website us[/url] [url=https://www.penspinning.de/community/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=24405]top phd cv ideas[/url] [url=https://forum.computertech.co/showthread.php?tid=15243]custom papers editor for hire for masters[/url]

Quincy Armstrong from Pearland was looking for tips on writing a thesis statement

Fabian McGrath found the answer to a search query tips on writing a thesis statement

[b]ESSAYERUDITE.COM[/b]

[url=https://essayerudite.com][img]http://essayerudite.com/images/banner/500x500.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=https://essayerudite.com]tips on writing a thesis statement[/url]

scope limitations thesis ielts sample problem solution essay how to write an autobiography for psychology write me best expository essay online how to write in chinese running script how to write on someones wall in new facebook the case against homework friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies essay twenty20 world cup 2009 essay esl dissertation abstract editing website gb custom problem solving editor website for school samples of resume for b tech students senior operation executive resume free resume templates for laborers va tech career cover letter voyages doctor dolittle book report medical device sales resume format university of michigan essay examples essay king tut title page format apa 6th edition planning a topic sentence for an essay how to write a price increase letter esl personal essay ghostwriting website for university intestinal papers parasite research joan didion essay sacrament how to write javascript code in asp net custom masters dissertation introduction advice custom homework writing site treasury analyst resume of professional article review editing service usa dissertation on mutual funds esl papers writers for hire write a cause and effect essay on divorce website content writing services research proposal premarital counseling best report ghostwriters websites for university top book review ghostwriter for hire for phd cheap critical thinking writer services for phd political science essay writer website knowledge management dissertation pdf esl paper ghostwriting sites for college business plan template internet businesses tricks to shorten an essay top dissertation writer site online resume group home manager resume support desktop who to write cover letter to example icu nursing resume research paper on breat implants describing current job on resume custom critical thinking editor site uk blackness visible essays on philosophy and race summary cheap speech editor site for phd homework aol how to write job application e mails free essays for college admission how to write long numbers junior hedge fund analyst resume barman cover letter essay on peacock in sanskrit book report assignments top admission paper writer websites for college resume by pci pci e lan bolker writing your dissertation sex education research papers sqa intermediate 2 maths past papers answers essay on relation of maths in other subjects skills listings for resume how to write a book online essay on disability is not an inability type my drama argumentative essay sample method section for research papers how to write a thesis for essay example of formal definition essay type my investments biography custom essay ghostwriting sites uk free gmat essays download dissertation writers websites us easy homework ideas how to find resume templates on ms word research paper topics education early childhood how to write a paper on music science how to write an abstract houston resume writer top blog post writers service for mba essentials of academic writing with independence comes increased responsibility essays help me write top phd essay on hillary clinton custom research proposal ghostwriting websites usa thesis sleep apnea resume format examples templates sports bar restaurant business plan template voice analyst resume how to write dossier write english essay online asp on error resume next scope research cover letter template essay riding in cars with boys unredeemed captive book report professional thesis proposal writers sites for phd best resume writers website uk relationship between shylock and antonio essay work thesis creating a web cite sample thesis on hrm esl resume ghostwriters services online top admission essay editing service ca objective for resume in healthcare field do my trigonometry movie review student essay winners homework proofreading for hire online dissertation template university of phoenix recruiter resume database write a personal narrative graphic organizer essays about video games benefits how to write html code in javascript function man and woman relationship essay type my popular best essay on presidential elections sap dms resume pro school prayer essay

[url=https://176mw.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=138&pid=456822&page=2270&extra=page%3D1#pid456822]resume cover letter for a first job[/url] [url=http://forum.softhistory.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2028]resume on[/url] [url=http://forumgjw.8u.cz/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=679]examples graduate school essays psychology[/url] [url=https://heathenboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=95339]top thesis ghostwriting sites au[/url] [url=https://leeholdsworth.com/index.php?topic=42637.new#new]cfo resume examples[/url] [url=https://forexforum.cz/members/92341-stevenpn]professional expository essay writers website us[/url] [url=https://www.penspinning.de/community/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=24405]top phd cv ideas[/url] [url=https://forum.computertech.co/showthread.php?tid=15243]custom papers editor for hire for masters[/url]

Home » Discussion » Discussion forum

Last updated on 4.8.2021.

• Essay Editor

Simplify Essay Writing With AI-Powered Tools: Your Complete Guide

In the realm of academic and creative writing, AI-powered tools combine innovation and proficiency. Currently, artificial writers have revolutionized our approach to composing essays. Among these transformative tools shines the AI text generator Aithor, a platform designed to empower writers and students in crafting compelling and consistent papers. Our writing assistant uses advanced language processing to generate ideas, check accuracy, and content originality, and suggest synonyms or citations that fit your needs. Its intuitive features make writing easy and accurate.

In this guide, we'll examine the space of artificial assistants, and how they function seamlessly, how to use AI to write an essay, as well as the profound impact they have on the writing experience for authors. Click and enter a new age of effortless, high-grade compositions with automated intelligence at your side. Let's embark on this journey together and unleash the capacity of using AI to write essays!

What is an Essay?

An academic essay is like a canvas where ideas awaken through words, capturing and exploring a chosen concept. It's a structure-based form of content that lets essayists showcase their perceptions, opinions, and reflections in an organized and clear manner.

Essays are available in diverse shapes and sizes, each serving a unique purpose: from persuasive articles that aim to change standpoints to informative papers that investigate the facts and evaluations thoroughly. Essentially, an essay's purpose is to communicate ideas effectively. Academic papers, no matter brief or comprehensive, serve as essential tools for communication and education.

Note: To elevate the level of your paper, in terms of quality, such as improving overall clarity, organization, and depth of your analysis or argumentation, try using our essay editing AI service.

Let's look into common academic paper types:

Argumentative Essays. Opinion or persuasive papers, akin to debates aim to convince the audience. They are concentrated on asserting a specific position and defending it. Yet, they also mention counter-arguments and provide a concession or refutation to demonstrate the writer’s perspective on the question as the most logical and valid. Descriptive Essays. This type of writing strives to depict a subject vividly, be it an event, object, individual, or location. They use detailed language to create a vibrant description that captivates the reader's impressions. Narrative Papers. In this genre of writing, the author narrates a story, often rooted in personal experiences. The objective is to impart a moral lesson to the reader through the storyline’s progression. Analytical Papers. This paper dives deep into a certain subject, dissecting it into its constituents and investigating each part closely. This type of writing involves analytical reasoning and detailed scrutiny.

Expository Essays. These compositions are instructive, presenting data, statistics, and evidence to inform the audience about a particular subject. Continue reading to update your understanding of composing papers and learn about the benefits of essay improver AI tools. 2. Writing an Essay in the Traditional Way Creating a decent essay conventionally involves a series of essential steps that demand close and meticulousness. Skipping any of these steps can lead to a disorganized written assignment. So, what exactly are the vital actions? Let's break them down to navigate you through the procedure of writing an intelligible and solid essay.

• Firstly, picking a topic is paramount. Your selected subject should captivate your reader, and ignite your passion. Take the time to research various topics, given the breadth and depth they offer for your paper.
• The next stage passes thorough research. Explore your picked topic to compile the required data to reinforce your central claims. Keep track of the sources for referencing purposes later on.
• Creating a strong thesis statement is pivotal to your paper. This sentence encapsulates the primary theme, essay’s purpose, and perspectives you'll be discussing.
• Crafting a thought-out outline is crucial for organizing your key arguments or ideas. Divide your paper into sections and plan the key points you'll cover in each part.
• Start putting your thoughts into words using an outline as a guide. Begin with a captivating intro to attract the reader’s attention. Follow it with body sections presenting your key standpoints and evidence, and finish the paper with a paraphrased thesis and summary.
• After drafting, shift to the content revision along with the editing phase. Focus on clarity, flow, and coherence. To do so, check whether your viewpoints are supported well and your text remains succinct and focused.
• Proofreading is vital to catch typos and syntax errors. Moreover, proper citation is essential, and plagiarism detector services can help validate your assignment’s originality.

Writing a paper conventionally demands meticulousness and dedication, but it sets the foundation for a skillfully crafted work that conveys your thoughts effectively. Nonetheless, this process can be long-lasting and demanding, which is when AI essay help services readily offer valuable assistance.

AI and Essay Writing

Automated or Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized academic and creative writing, dramatically improving and reforming the academic paper generation process. Its capacity to produce text resembling natural human language renders it a valuable asset for authors. Here’s the explanation of key features that simplify essay AI composing and create human-alike language, tone, and style:

• Natural Language Processing (NLP): Artificial writers utilize NLP, allowing machines to comprehend, interpret, and produce natural language. This innovation fuels chatbots, writing assistants, and automated text generators.
• Machine Learning Models: Automated writing assistants utilize computational models to analyze extensive text data, gaining an understanding of syntax, language, and subtleties to produce cohesive sentences tailored for the overall context.
• Contextual Comprehension: Machine intelligence's remarkable capability to grasp context promises that the artificially produced text remains coherent, consistent, and logical. That is crucial for effective paper writing.

By using AI to write an essay when effectively leveraging innovative technologies, beginner and pro writers get support throughout the essay-formation process, enhancing papers’ quality and efficiency.

Now, let's discuss how users can leverage text generator in their creative writing journey. Struggling to compose an attention-grabbing hook, or a compelling conclusion? Or want to boost the uniqueness of the content? AI-powered services are here to solve such problems.

Composition creator services offer various benefits for your assignments, such as efficient research using AI-driven search engines or chatbots, creating foundational content with artificial text creators like ChatGPT, ensuring plagiarism-free writing with paraphrasing tools, and improving essay quality through mechanic translate feature for accessing academic resources in multiple languages.

Embracing smart tools like the AI essay writer that can't be detected by plagiarism checkers can make the paper writing process more efficient and help authors generate standout academic papers resonating with their unique voice and flair.

Let’s briefly go over how we can use essay generator tools in paper writing:

1 . Efficient Research

Use AI-driven search engines or chatbots for streamlined research.

Gather foundational content efficiently using text generators like ChatGPT.

2 . Enhancing Originality

Employ paraphrasing tools to ensure written content contains no plagiarism.

Use AI-powered translate feature to access academic resources in different languages.

Incorporating AI tools in paper generation in tasks like drafting, researching, editing, and formatting texts, streamlines the creative process, improves text’s uniqueness, and elevates its overall quality. Artificial writers guarantee that an essay written by AI resonates with every single user's exclusive voice and tone.

How to Write an Essay with AI?

Looking for some advice on “How to enhance my essay?” Imagine a data-driven assistant who not only corrects your language flaws but also helps you polish your article: refine your viewpoints, and boost your assignment’s precision and creativity. That’s the handy capacity of artificial intelligence.

Now, we'll delve into AI-powered text generation, exploring tips and strategies to maximize the use of such writing tools.

Tip #1: Efficient Editing and Proofreading with AI

Problem: Struggling with spotting various mistakes with writing quality and the impact of written content?

Solution: Use our essay editor AI platform Aithor.ai for instant analysis and recommendations on sentence structure, clarity, and consistency. Use their feedback to enhance your abilities in paper writing over time.

Tip #2: Flawless Grammar & Spelling Checks with AI

Problem: Incorrect spelling and grammatical errors?

Solution: Checker tools for spelling and grammar mistakes like Aithor.ai ensure real-time error-free writing. Review and accept their suggestions for polished essays.

Tip #3: Conciseness and Clarity Made Easy with AI

Problem: Confusing and lengthy sentences?

Solution: Use tools like Aithor.ai and content summarizer templates to simplify complex statements and clarify your ideas.

Tip #4: Diversify Vocabulary with AI-Generated Suggestions

Problem: Repetitive words in your piece?

Solution: AI-driven thesaurus tools improve an essay: suggest synonyms, and intensify your vocabulary and engagement.

Tip #5: Ensure Originality with AI-Powered Plagiarism Detector

Problem: Worried about accidental plagiarism?

Solution: Pick from a plethora of plagiarism checkers or AI detector services to maintain originality and academic integrity.

Tip #6: Organize Your Thoughts with AI Guidance

Problem: Difficulty in writing a well-structured essay?

Solution: AI-driven outline generators provide structure suggestions for a coherent paper.

Tip #7: Elevate Engagement with NLP Analysis

Problem: Lacking depth and engagement in your piece of writing?

Solution: AI writing assistants using NLP analyze text patterns to enhance engagement.

Tip #8: Personalized Feedback for Improvement

Problem: Unsure how to improve your writing?

Solution: AI-generated feedback from writing platforms helps you identify areas for enhancement.

Tip #9: Practice and Learn with AI-Powered Writing Prompts

Problem: Need more writing practice?

Solution: Engage with AI-suggested writing prompts and feedback for skill refinement.

Tip #10: Balancing AI and Human Editing

Problem: How to combine virtual assistance tools and human editing effectively?

Solution: Start with virtual assistants for initial edits and collaborate with human editors for final touches and unique insights.

Overall, AI complements your writing journey, offering practical solutions to common writing challenges. Embrace these tips to unleash the full potential of artificial brain power in your next assignment.

In a nutshell, the integration of AI content generators in composing texts marks a significant advancement in the writing landscape. Automated writers, with their ability to generate natural language, understand its context, and enhance efficiency, offer a transformative experience for writers at all levels. By leveraging AI for efficient research, originality enhancement, structure guidance, and custom-made feedback, writers can elevate their writing skills to new heights.

Embracing AI streamlines the writing procedure and guarantees that essays resonate with the writer's unique voice, tone, and flair. As you embark on this journey of AI-supported writing, maximize the potential of these tools and create standout papers that captivate and engage readers.

Related articles

What is chat gpt.

AI GPT chats have been getting a lot of attention over the last year. Not surprising since this new technology promises to change our future completely. The first and most well-known AI GPT chat software is ChatGPT officially released on November 30, 2022. In this article, we will answer the question “What is Chat GPT?”, explore how it works, and find out where to use the Chat GPT model. Chat GPT: definition As the name implies, ChatGPT is a chatbot that uses generative AI to process input p ...

How To Write Reflection Essays

How often do you contemplate how the tapestry of your experiences shapes your thoughts? A reflection paper lets you explore that. It's like deep diving into your life’s precious moments, examining how stories, books, events, or even lectures have influenced your views. This type of academic essay integrates a personal perspective, allowing you to openly express your opinions. In this guide, we will delve into the specifics of reflective writing, share some tips, and show some self-reflection es ...

How to Write Informative Essays

Informative essays are one of the main types of academic writing students must complete as part of the educational process. While this is a typical assignment in any curriculum, it can be hard to distinguish between different types of essays and how to write them. In this article, we’ll delve into the genre of this essay type, learn the definition of an informative essay, and how to write an informational essay. What is an informative essay? An informative essay is a piece of academic writin ...

How to Write an Essay in APA Format

There are a few styles of organizing and formatting material in an academic essay. To get high grades it is necessary to learn specific characteristics of each one. After reading this article students are certain to figure out how to write in APA format. What is APA format for an essay? It was the American Psychological Association who offered to use the APA style when formatting articles and academic papers. The specialists described all its aspects in a special Publication Manual, printed i ...

Synthesis Essay Examples

A synthesis essay is another piece of academic discourse that students often find difficult to write. This assignment indeed requires a more nuanced approach to writing and performing research. It’s particularly relevant to students taking an AP English Language and Composition exam, so learning how to write a synthesis essay is crucial to getting a high score. This article will explore the definition of a synthesis essay, its functions, and objectives, and provide a tutorial on how to write a ...

MLA Format Essays: A Comprehensive Guide

Finishing an essay is one thing, but formatting it is a completely different affair. There are many style guides out there, so it can be hard to understand the differences between them. Today, you will learn about MLA format writing, what it is, when it’s used, and how to write MLA format essays. What is an MLA Style Essay? An MLA format essay is a piece of writing created in accordance with the MLA Style Handbook. This guide was developed by the Modern Language Association, the leading profe ...

Master the Art of Paraphrasing with This Comprehensive Guide

In academic writing, you often need to process a large number of sources to compile a thorough and credible examination. However, you can’t simply copy and paste all information into your text document. In such instances, paraphrasing becomes essential. In this short article, we’ll define paraphrasing, talk about why it’s important, and provide guidance on how to paraphrase in an essay. What is paraphrasing? Paraphrasing is a technique that involves rewriting the source text in a way that pr ...

APA or MLA: Choosing the Right Citation Style for Your Paper

When it comes to academic writing, properly citing your sources is crucial. It not only helps you avoid plagiarism but also adds credibility to your work by showing that you've done your research. However, with various citation styles out there, it can be tricky to know which one to use. Two of the most common styles are APA (American Psychological Association) and MLA (Modern Language Association). In this article, we'll take a closer look at the APA vs MLA format to help you decide which is ri ...

Expository Text Tutor-Expository Writing Aid

Empowering Young Writers with AI

Hello! I'm here to help you write great expository texts. Where shall we start?

How do I start writing about my topic?

Can you help me research my topic?

How do I create a VENN diagram?

I need help with my thesis.

How should I write my introduction?

Herramientas relacionadas

I improve your text step by step, giving clear reasons for each change. This helps you understand the improvements and learn from them. My service works with all languages, offering a complete learning experience.

Essay Assist

Assist with academic essay research by finding & summarising key papers. Type your essay title to get started.

Super Explainer

I turn complex concepts into engaging, understandable lessons with Python examples.

Explain Anything

I'm an expert in research and explanations, making complex topics clear and accessible.

ESL Reading Tutor

ESL text presenter and tutor for language learners

Study Guide Buddy

Extracts key concepts, creates reading guides, and outlines points with citations.

20.0 / 5 ( 200 votes)

Overview of Expository Text Tutor

Expository Text Tutor is designed to assist 3rd and 4th grade English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in Taiwan, focusing on the structured process of writing expository texts. The purpose of this tool is to facilitate the development of research, writing, and critical thinking skills by guiding students through various stages of writing—from selecting a topic to crafting a detailed essay. For example, when learning about animals, students might use the tool to compare and contrast different species, organizing their findings into a VENN diagram and developing a thesis that highlights similarities and differences. The tutor encourages self-directed research and structured writing, ensuring students learn to organize their thoughts and present them clearly.

Core Functions of Expository Text Tutor

Topic selection.

Helping students choose a topic like comparing two animals based on their habitat and diet.

A student might be curious about the differences between pandas and tigers. The tutor will guide the student in defining specific aspects to compare, such as their environments, eating habits, and social behaviors.

Research Guidance

Advising students on gathering key details without providing direct answers.

In a session, the tutor might prompt students to think about what information is important when comparing their chosen animals, such as where they live or what they eat, directing them to reliable sources of information.

VENN Diagram Creation

Assisting in organizing information into a VENN diagram to visually sort similarities and differences.

After gathering information, a student uses the tutor's guidance to fill out a VENN diagram, distinguishing shared characteristics and unique traits of the animals studied, which helps in structuring their essay.

Thesis Generation

Supporting students in developing a thesis statement that encapsulates the main comparison points.

The tutor helps a student craft a thesis like 'While pandas and tigers both require forested areas, their feeding habits and social structures differ significantly.'

Body Paragraph Development

Guiding the construction of body paragraphs with clear main ideas and supporting details.

Students learn to write detailed paragraphs, first discussing the similarities between the animals and then their differences, using the information sorted in their VENN diagram.

Conclusion Crafting

Helping students summarize their findings and restate their thesis in the conclusion.

In the final paragraph, the tutor guides the student to summarize the comparison and contrast of pandas and tigers, emphasizing the insights gained through their research.

Target User Groups for Expository Text Tutor

Efl students in elementary school.

3rd and 4th grade students in Taiwan learning English as a Foreign Language are the primary users. They benefit from structured writing guidance that enhances their ability to conduct research, organize information, and articulate their findings in English.

Teachers of Young EFL Learners

Teachers can utilize this tool to provide a structured learning environment, helping students with varying levels of English proficiency to improve their writing skills and develop critical thinking abilities.

How to Use Expository Text Tutor

Visit yeschat.ai for a free trial without login, also no need for ChatGPT Plus.

Choose your focus from a selection of academic writing topics or specify your own to start using the tool.

Use the provided templates and scaffolds to begin structuring your essay, including thesis statements and paragraph organization.

Utilize the VENN diagram tool to visually organize your research and compare different subjects or concepts.

Submit your draft for feedback, focusing on areas for improvement in clarity, coherence, and organization.

Prueba otros GPTs avanzados y prácticos

Cyber defender.

Train Smarter, Defend Faster

Course à la mairie de Montréal

Navigate Montreal's politics with AI

Expert Financement LFE

Optimize funding with AI-powered expertise

Correcteur Éclair

Elevate Your French with AI

Styliste Créatif

Designing Fashion with AI Insight

Sensual Scribe

Igniting Imagination with AI-Powered Erotic Tales

Manga creator beta

Craft Your Manga Masterpiece with AI

Expository Sermon Personal Assistant

Craft Sermons with AI-Powered Insight

PR Gen-nie - headlines

Crafting headlines with AI precision

China headlines

Streamlining China's news with AI

Health Headlines

AI-powered Health News Curator

OpenAssistant API Helper

Empowering Development with AI

• Academic Writing
• Essay Structuring
• Thesis Crafting
• Draft Feedback
• Research Skills

Frequently Asked Questions About Expository Text Tutor

What is the expository text tutor.

Expository Text Tutor is an educational tool designed to help 3rd and 4th grade EFL students in Taiwan improve their expository writing skills through structured guidance and scaffolding.

How does the VENN diagram tool assist students?

The VENN diagram tool helps students visually organize their research by comparing and contrasting different subjects, which enhances their understanding and aids in the synthesis of information.

Can Expository Text Tutor help with other types of essays?

While primarily focused on expository essays, the tool's features can be adapted for other types of academic writing such as argumentative or descriptive essays, especially in organizing and structuring content.

Is there a feature to get real-time feedback on my drafts?

Yes, the tool offers a feedback mechanism where students can submit their drafts and receive suggestions on how to improve their writing in terms of clarity, coherence, and argumentation.

What are the system requirements for using Expository Text Tutor?

The tool is web-based, so it requires an internet connection and can be accessed through most modern web browsers on computers, tablets, and smartphones.

Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 07 May 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  48 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Daniel R. Espinas 1 , 2 &
• Brennan W. Chandler 2  

We conducted a systematic review of research involving K-12 students that examined associations among individual differences factors (e.g., working memory) and intertextual integration. We identified 25 studies published in 23 peer-reviewed journal articles and two dissertations/theses. These examined a wide range of individual difference factors, which we organized into four categories: (a) language and literacy, (b) cognition and metacognition, (c) knowledge and beliefs, and (d) motivation, emotion, and personality. We found large variation in the participants, tasks, and document types, and little systematic replication across studies. Nonetheless, results generally showed that variation in literacy, cognition, metacognition, knowledge, beliefs, and motivation are positively and moderately associated with intertextual integration. We discuss the limitations of this work and offer four recommendations for future research.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Reading is a social practice defined by one’s historical and cultural context (Gee, 2007 ). Indeed, from its on origins on clay pots, advances in writing technology (e.g., printing press) have radically changed the forms that texts can take; how they are shared and accessed; their roles in social, cultural, and economic practices; and expectations for who should be able to read and produce them (Manguel, 1996 ; Olson, 1994 ). This gradual evolution has seen rapid developments over the past 30 years, with advances in digital technology now offering near universal access to text documents, and in effect changing what readers read (Mackey, 2020 ), how they do it (Baron, 2021 ; Rouet, 2005 ; Wolf, 2018 ), and for what purposes (Coiro, 2021 ; Leu et al., 2019 ; Magliano et al., 2018 ). Consequently, what is now regarded as literate differs markedly from that of even several decades ago (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory 2012 ; Britt et al., 2018 ). It is within this new context that we consider one aspect of literacy that has become increasingly common: intertextual integration.

The matter of integrating multiple information sources has been a topic of great interest in several fields (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2012 ; Braasch et al., 2018 ; Nelson & King, 2022 ). Given our interest in applications for K-12 literacy learning and instruction, we focus in this study on intertextual integration as it has been conceptualized within educational psychology. In this context, intertextual integration refers to the mental process of selecting, organizing, corroborating, and synthesizing information from multiple document sources for the purpose of constructing a coherent representation of the situation presented among them (Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Brand-Gruwel et al., 2009 ; Britt et al., 1999 ; Leu et al., 2015 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ; Wineburg, 1991 ). We focus here primarily on connections among text documents made during reading and writing, rather than connections made between information presented in other types of media (e.g., pictures, videos) or in other forms of discourse (e.g., conversations). Note that this definition of intertextual integration overlaps with the concept of intertextuality (Allen, 2022 ; Bazerman, 2004 ; Lemke, 2004 ). The latter has been defined in a variety of ways but generally refers to connections a person makes between texts and their store of accumulated textual, contextual, and cultural knowledge.

The remainder of this introduction is organized into three parts. First, we discuss the importance of intertextual integration in K-12 educational contexts. Second, provide a capsule summary of how intertextual integration has been conceptualized in frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use. Third, we discuss hypothesized predictors of intertextual integration, and previous efforts to review this literature.

Intertextual Integration in K-12 Education

Over the past century, reading research and practice have focused largely on processes involved in reading single, carefully curated documents for a small range of academic purposes (Anderson et al., 1985 ; Gibson & Levin, 1975 ; Huey, 1908 ; Perfetti, 1985 ; Reichle, 2021 ; Scammacca et al., 2016 ). This work has shown that reading depends on learning how oral and written language are structured and connected (Adams, 1990 ; Byrne, 1998 ; Castles et al., 2018 ; Ehri, 2014 ); acquiring rich, well-connected, and easily accessible stores of word, domain, disciplinary, and cultural knowledge (Goldman et al., 2016 ; Hwang et al., 2022 ; Lee, 2007 ; McCarthy & McNamara, 2021 ; Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ); and efficient use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to monitor and construct meaning within a document (Garner, 1987 ; Graesser, 2007 ). A large body of work has also shown that reader characteristics (e.g., motivation) interact with features of the document (e.g., length, genre) and task (e.g., form an argument) to influence comprehension processes and outcomes (Afflerbach 2016 ; Snow, 2002 ).

Although skillful single document reading remains vital, present-day readers often encounter tasks involving multiple printed and digital text documents (Baron, 2021 ). Therefore, beyond the skills just outlined, readers must now also develop facility with a variety of multiple document use skills, to include searching for, selecting, navigating, evaluating, and integrating multiple printed and digital documents (Britt et al., 2018 ). Such skills are critical for academic achievement (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory, 2012 ; National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ), to competitively participate in information-based economies (National Research Council, 2012a , 2012b ; Rouet et al., 2021 ), and to engage in informed civic discourse on matters of science, history, and culture (Goldman et al., 2016 ; Leinhardt & Young, 1996 ; List, 2023 ; Stadtler & Bromme, 2013 ).

Among the skills of multiple document use, intertextual integration plays a prominent role in current college- and career-readiness standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ), in national and international assessment frameworks for K-12 students and adults (National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; Rouet et al., 2021 ; Sparks & Deane, 2015 ), and in conceptual frameworks for disciplinary and digital literacy (Coiro, 2021 ; Goldman et al., 2016 ; Leu et al., 2019 ). For example, the Common Core State Standards state that kindergarten students should be able to, “…identify similarities in and differences between two texts on the same topic…” (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ). Fifth graders are to “[d]raw on information from multiple print or digital sources…” and “[i]ntegrate information from several texts on the same topic…” And by 11th and 12th grade, students are to “[i]ntegrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media formats…” Similarly, it is expected in K-12 standards for social studies (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ) and science (National Research Council, 2013 ) that students develop competency with gathering, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple sources.

Tasks involving intertextual integration unfortunately prove difficult for many readers (Cho, 2013 ; Goldman et al., 2012 ; Many, 1996 ; McGrew et al., 2018 ; Raphael & Boyd, 1991 ; Rott & Gavin, 2015 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Yang, 2002 ). Indeed, although children and adolescents regularly work with multiple documents in language arts, social studies, and science, they rarely form spontaneous intertextual connections (Cho et al., 2018 ; Many, 1996 ; Many et al., 1996 ; Stahl et al., 1996 ; VanSledright, 2002 ; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998 ; Wolfe & Goldman, 2005 ). This has been found even for college-level students (Greene, 1993 ; Kennedy, 1985 ; McGinley, 1992 ; Rott & Gavin, 2015 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Yang, 2002 ). As we will discuss in the following sections, many factors have been proposed for why intertextual integration proves so difficult.

As with single document comprehension (Magliano et al., 2023 ; Wang et al., 2019 ), it is possible that intertextual integration skills cannot fully develop until foundational reading and writing skills are secured. However, evidence from at least one study suggests that intertextual integration is possible even with impaired word-level reading skills (Andresen, Anmarkrud, Salmerón, et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, even as children are developing word-level reading skills, they can be capable of performing complex comprehension tasks (Williams et al., 2016 ). Moreover, even by the age of six, children are able to monitor information sources (Drummey & Newcombe, 2002 ; Lindsay et al., 1991 ) and even critically evaluate their trustworthiness (Koenig & Harris, 2005 ). As reflected in current instructional standards (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ), it is not unreasonable to expect that even in kindergarten, and certainly by the upper elementary grades, children may be capable of integrating information from multiple text sources. In the following sections, we discuss what is known about intertextual integration and its predictors.

Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Intertextual Integration

Many psychological frameworks, theories, and models have been proposed to account for intertextual integration within the broader context of multiple document use (Afflerbach et al., 2014 ; Afflerbach & Cho, 2009 ; Bråten et al., 2020 ; Britt et al., 2018 ; Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2021 ; Cho & Afflerbach, 2017 ; Leu et al., 2019 ; List, 2020 ; List & Alexander, 2017a , 2019 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Rouet et al., 2017 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Stadtler & Bromme, 2014 ; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2022 ; Yang, 2002 ). In Table A1 , we have listed a selection of 12, ranging from generalized to specialized accounts. We have provided summaries in the table of the major points of each and have noted the cognitive and affective factors that are explicitly specified in them. As context for the rest of the article, we provide a detailed description of the Documents Model Framework (DMF; Britt et al., 1999 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ) as it has provided the foundation for much of the theorizing and empirical work that has followed.

The DMF provided the first attempt at a psychological account of how meaning is constructed from multiple documents. It emerged from research on text-based history learning (Perfetti et al., 1995 ), in which it is common for readers to engage with multiple documents that present discrepant information and often vary in length, layout, format, structure, purpose, and reliability. Within the discipline of history, it is important to evaluate features of the document sources (i.e., sourcing) and consider how information presented among them is related (i.e., corroborate; Wineburg, 1991 ). Notably, intertextual integration proves important also in science and literature (Goldman et al., 2016 ).

It is proposed in the DMF that integration is accomplished by constructing two representations: an integrated situations model and an inter-text model (Britt et al., 1999 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ). The integrated situations model contains from each document semantic information about the common topic or issue being discussed. The inter-text model comprises meta-document information, such as the source author, publication, date, and purpose. This information is captured in networks of source-document nodes (Perfetti et al., 1999 ).

The reader’s comprehension will depend on the forms of these two models (Britt et al., 1999 ). Following Britt et al.'s ( 1999 ) framework, three possible outcomes are illustrated in Fig.  1 : (a) a mush model, (b) a separate representation model, and (c) a document model. A mush model is one in which the reader constructs a well-formed integrated situation model but a undeveloped inter-text model. In this case, information from across the documents is well represented but not linked to the sources from which it originated. Moreover, information about the sources and links among them are not captured. The opposite pattern can be seen in the separate representations model , wherein the inter-text model is well developed but the situation model is unformed. In this case, content is recalled and linked to each source but is not cohesively integrated. With the documents model , both the situation model and the inter-text model are well-formed. Information is clearly linked to the documents from which it originated, relations among the documents are captured (e.g., agree, disagree), and a well-integrated representation of the situation is formed.

Adapted from Fig.  3 in List et al. ( 2019 ), Fig. 1 in Saux et al. ( 2021 ), and Fig. 4.2a in Perfetti et al. ( 1999 )

Multiple document representations. 

Forming intertextual connections is highly effortful—requiring both bottom-up and top-down processes (Kurby et al., 2005 ; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2022 ). Accordingly, these connections may not be formed in cases where the reader views them as unnecessary or is unable to do so. In certain contexts (e.g., history class) and for certain tasks (e.g., research report), though, it may be important to construct well-formed intertextual representations (e.g., documents model). Certain tasks can also promote greater intertextual integration than others (e.g., arguments vs. summaries; McNamara et al., 2023 ; Wiley & Voss, 1999 ). However, in other contexts, and for other tasks, the high cognitive effort may outweigh the need. Therefore, the likelihood that a reader will construct a particular representational form (e.g., mush model) depends in part on the context and task at hand (Frederiksen, 1975 ; Rouet & Britt, 2011 ; Rouet et al., 2017 ; Spivey, 1995 ; Van Dijk, 1979 ). In the following section, we turn the role played by individual differences in shaping intertextual integration.

Individual Differences in Intertextual Integration

A sizeable literature has examined the role that individual differences play in intertextual integration (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ). However, few of these studies have used intervention, longitudinal, or computational designs. This has greatly limited what can be concluded about the existence, direction, or magnitude of any potential causal relations. However, predictors of intertextual integration have been studied in many cross-sectional investigations. As an initial step toward synthesizing this literature, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting concurrent associations among individual differences factors (e.g., working memory) and intertextual integration.

Previous efforts to review this literature have revealed many useful insights (Alexander & Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2020 ; Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ; Bråten et al., 2011 ; List & Sun, 2023 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ) but are limited by several factors. First, only several reviews have used systematic and transparent search procedures (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; List & Sun, 2023 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ). This is critical for reducing sampling error and for ensuring replicability (Alexander, 2020 ; Cumming et al., 2023 ). Second, previous reviews have synthesized results from studies involving K-12, college, and adult readers (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ). This approach has the benefit of comprehensively mapping the terrain. However, combining such a broad range of ages can obscure potential developmental differences. Moreover, it complicates interpretation for both K-12 and college educators. Finally, most previous reviews have examined a wide range of multiple document use processes (e.g., source selection, source evaluation, intertextual integration) without clearly distinguishing how each is associated with particular individual differences factors.

Despite these limitations, previous reviews have provided useful insights into the roles that individual differences play in intertextual integration. For example, Barzilai and Strømsø ( 2018 ) identified a broad range of individual differences factors (cognition, metacognition, motivation, affect, socio-culture) that are associated with searching for, selecting, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple documents. Furthermore, they found evidence that these individual difference factors interact with one other, the reading task, and the context to produce different comprehension outcomes. However, few sources were cited for most factors and there were often large differences in the populations, documents, and tasks that were studied. This may point to limitations within the literature.

Other reviews have adopted narrower approaches. For example, Richter and Maier ( 2017 ) examined how individual differences in cognition and affect influence how readers identify and resolve discrepancies encountered across multiple documents. Using systematic search procedures, they identified 18 studies involving adolescent and adult readers. They found that readers’ prior beliefs about a topic and epistemic monitoring will determine whether a reader detects belief-inconsistent information. Then, once an inconsistency is detected, the reader’s epistemic goals and beliefs, background knowledge, working memory resources, and store of metacognitive strategies will influence whether they simply form a belief-consistent representation of the controversy or a more balanced mental model. Bråten et al. ( 2011 ) also exampled how beliefs influence multiple document comprehension. With a focus on expository texts, they found that epistemological beliefs (i.e., simplicity, certainty, source, justification) play important roles in creating and updating a task model, assessing information from each source and its relevance for the task, processing source contents, and creating and updating intertextual representations.

Finally, Tarchi et al. ( 2021 ) examined how executive functions (e.g., inhibition) are associated with multiple document use and comprehension. However, by including a wide variety of executive functions (working memory span, working memory reading span, working memory updating, problem solving, strategic processing, regulation, fluid reasoning), a mix of multiple document comprehension processes (intertextual integration, sourcing), and a broad age range (secondary school, undergraduate, adults), they were unable to any find robust patterns of association.

Present Study

The present study advances upon previous reviews in four ways. First, to reduce sampling error and to ensure transparency, we have used systematic search, selection, and coding procedures (Alexander, 2020 ; Cumming et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, to reduce publication bias, we included both peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertation/theses. Second, whereas others have combined results for K-12, college, and adult populations, we focused only on K-12 students. As noted, although intertextual integration is a cognitive taxing processes, it is an integral component of K-12 education (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 , 2010). However, in comparison to undergraduate and adult readers, K-12 students have been studied far less in research on multiple document use (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ). By focusing exclusively on this age range, implications for K-12 educators may be more clearly understood.

Third, whereas most other reviews have examined the roles played by individual differences factors in several components of multiple document use (e.g., search, selection, evaluation, integration), we focused here only on intertextual integration. To this end, we included only studies that clearly measured intertextual integration; not, as others have, combinations of document searching, selecting, evaluating, and integrating sources. In doing so, we provide a clearer assessment of associations among individual differences and intertextual integration. We decided to focus exclusively on intertextual integration for several reasons. First, intertextual integration is clearly referenced in K-12 standards and assessment frameworks (National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ). Therefore, there is clear practical importance for understanding the factors associated with this skill. Second, although individual differences in multiple document sourcing have been the subject of a recent and comprehensive systematic review (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ), previous reviews of intertextual integration have either not used systematic search procedures or focused more narrowly on specific individual differences factors or task types.

Fourth, whereas previous reviews have combined findings from studies with markedly different designs (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, intervention), we examine only concurrent associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration. This provides for a clearer interpretation of the results. In these four ways, this systematic review provides a systematic and transparent assessment of the nature, features, and volume of research that has examined associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration with K-12 students.

Research Questions

Our review was guided by four primary questions.

First, what are the characteristics of the participants involved in research on individual differences in intertextual integration? We predicted that more studies would involve secondary than elementary-level students. Furthermore, we predicted that studies would involve participants from a broad range of Western countries, language backgrounds, and socio-economic backgrounds. Finally, we predicted that few studies would involve participants with educational disabilities (e.g., dyslexia).

Second, what are the features of studies that have examined intertextual integration among K-12 students? Specifically, what kinds of tasks (e.g., form an argument, synthesize the information), documents (e.g., domain, genre, number of texts), and measures (e.g., essay, multiple choice) have been used? Based on previous reviews (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ), we predicted that a wide range of tasks, document types, and measures would be represented. Argumentation tasks, essay measures, and informational documents would be the most common, and narrative tasks, oral response measures, and narrative documents would be used infrequently.

Third, which types of individual differences factors have been studied? Based on previous reviews (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ) and the frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use and comprehension listed in Table A1 , we predicted that the following types of factors would be examined: language and literacy skills (e.g., word-level reading); cognition and metacognition; motivation, emotion, and personality; and knowledge and beliefs. Given the selected age range, we predicted that language and literacy skills would be studied the most and personality the least. Semantic knowledge (e.g., domain, topic) and cognitive processes (e.g., working memory, attention) would be well represented, whereas emotion and epistemic beliefs would not.

Fourth, what is the direction and strength of associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration? We predicted that certain epistemic beliefs (e.g., belief in authority) would be negatively and moderately correlated with intertextual integration (Bråten et al., 2011 ). All other factors would be positively correlated with intertextual integration, with literacy and knowledge being strongly correlated and cognitive skills and emotions being moderately correlated (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ).

We conducted two rounds of searches. The first was in May 2022 and the second in February 2024. For the first round, we used three methods: (1) an electronic database search, (2) a backward search, and (3) a forward search. For the second round, we used a snowballing approach.

Electronic Database Search

We consulted a university librarian to identify databases and search terms to capture relevant records. On 2 May 2022, we searched PsycInfo, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases for articles and theses/dissertations published prior to 2022. We used the following terms to search titles and abstracts: (noft("multiple text" OR "multiple texts" OR "multi-text" OR ("multiple source" OR "multiple sources") OR ("multiple document" OR "multiple documents") OR ("intertext" OR "intertexual")) AND ti,ab,su("read*" OR "write*" OR "process*" OR "navigat*" OR "integrat*" OR "teach*" OR "instruct*" OR "histor*" OR "scien*" OR "socioscientific") AND noft("elementary" OR "primary" OR "middle*" OR "high* " OR "secondary*")). These terms reflect the various ways multiple text use and comprehension have been defined (Goldman & Scardamalia, 2013 ), the disciplines in which this work has been conducted (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ), and the targeted age range (i.e., K-12). The search yielded 4,667 sources.

Backward, Forward, and Snowballing Search

We also conducted a backward search of references from seven reviews and conceptual articles on multiple document comprehension (i.e., Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Bråten et al., 2020 ; List & Alexander, 2019 ; Nelson & King, 2022 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ; Saux et al., 2021 ). Then, using Google Scholar, we conducted an initial forward search for any records that had cited these reviews. Through these methods, we identified 294 sources.

In February 2024, we updated our search using the SnowGlobe application (McWeeny et al., 2021 ). SnowGlobe using a snowballing approach to search the references and citations of selected records. We used the 23 records identified through our initial searches. Using SnowGlobe, we identified 1115 records, of which 186 were duplicates. We used the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in the following section to screen studies in both rounds of searches.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included only sources that met the following six criteria in this review:

The record was a peer-reviewed journal article, dissertation, or thesis. We excluded technical reports, conference abstracts, books, and book chapters. If the study was published as both a dissertation/thesis and journal article, we selected the journal version.

Study participants were enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade (i.e., elementary, middle, or secondary/high school). We excluded studies that only involved undergraduate, graduate, or adult participants. We also excluded studies that did not disaggregate K-12 and adult populations. However, we did include studies involving participants attending prevocational programs.

The study reported original data from a cross-sectional, longitudinal, or group experimental design. We excluded studies that used qualitative or single-case designs.

The study included at least one measure of participants’ intertextual integration. We excluded studies that measured a dimension of multiple document use (e.g., search, selection, evaluation) but not intertextual integration and studies that only measured intertextual integration in combination with another skill (e.g., source evaluation).

The study reported at least one direct (i.e., not partial correlation) and concurrent correlation between an intertextual integration measure and an individual differences measure. If the study used an experimental or quasi-experimental design, measures had to be collected prior to the intervention. Data from any measures collected during or after the intervention were excluded.

The study was published in English prior to February 2024.

Screening and Data Extraction

We used covidence, a commercial web-based platform, for screening and data extraction. As illustrated in Fig.  2 , the process involved three successive stages: (a) title and abstract screening, (b) full text screening, and (c) data extraction.

PRISMA diagram

Title/Abstract and Full-Text Screening

Results from the three search procedures produced 4961 records. After removing duplicates ( k  = 512), we (the first and second author) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 4449 records identified in the first round of screening. The first author independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 1115 records identified in the second round. For title and abstract screening, we used the above noted inclusion and exclusion criteria. When it was unclear whether a record met the inclusion criteria, we advanced it to full-text screening for further review. We addressed all discrepancies through discussions.

Based on the exclusion criteria, we deemed 5561 irrelevant. We independently reviewed the full texts of the remaining 293 from the first search and six from the second. For the first search, we met after coding the first 20 records and then again after the next 50 to discuss discrepancies. After coding the initial 70, we revised wording for several of the exclusion criteria to improve clarity. We met again after the next 100 and then once all the records had been screened to discuss discrepancies. Total agreement for title/abstract screening was 95%, and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.63. For full-text screening, total agreement was 94% and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.67. We excluded 274 for various reasons reported in Fig.  2 . This resulted in 25 records that met the full inclusion criteria. These are listed in the Appendix.

Data Extraction

We developed a codebook based on variables included in several previous reviews of single and multiple document comprehension (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ; Toste et al., 2020 ). The codebook included general information (study ID, publication year, country where the study was conducted, type of source, research question), information about participants (inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, sample size, demographic information), documents information (number, length, format, mode, type, agreement, difficulty), the intertextual integration task (directions, genre, format), and individual differences in literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, rapid naming, decoding, single-text comprehension, written composition), cognition and metacognition (e.g., working memory, attention, processing speed, metacognition), motivation and emotion (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, emotional reactivity), personality (e.g., conscientiousness, need for cognition), knowledge and beliefs (e.g., content/topic knowledge, epistemic cognition), sourcing ability (e.g., trustworthiness), and demographics (e.g., age, sex/gender). We independently coded 24% ( k  = 6) of the sources. Total agreement was 87%, and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.73. We handled all disagreements through discussion. We made several revisions to the codebook to capture the full range of individual differences that were studied. The first author then independently coded the remaining 19 sources. Coded studies are available through the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/xqb4h/ ). 

Participant Characteristics

Records included 23 peer-reviewed journal articles (92%) and two dissertations/theses (8%), all published within a 13-year range from 2009 to 2022. Each record reported results from a single study with an independent sample. Across the studies, 5600 participants were included (median = 99, range = 44–1434). Twenty-two studies (96%) reported sex or gender, of which there 53% were female. Studies were conducted in five countries: Norway ( k  = 9, 36%), Italy ( k  = 6, 24%), the USA ( k  = 5, 20%), the Netherlands ( k  = 3, 12%), Israel ( k  = 1, 4%), and Hong Kong ( k  = 1, 4%). Mean participant age was reported in 21 studies (84%) and ranged from 9 years 7 months (Florit, Cain, Mason  2020 ) to 18 years 6 months (Strømsø et al., 2010 ). Grade levels ranged from fourth to twelfth, with five studies (20%) involving students at the elementary level (grades K-5) and (80%) at the secondary level (grades 6–12). Eight (32%) of the secondary-level studies involved students enrolled in college preparatory and prevocational programs. Although we consider these as part of the K-12 span, specific grade-level correspondences are unclear.

Authors in 19 (76%) and 20 (80%) of the studies did not report inclusionary or exclusionary criteria, respectively. Exclusionary criteria included having a disability ( k  = 2, 8%), being a minority language speaker ( k  = 1, 4%), and having poor eye movement registration ( k  = 2, 8%). Twenty studies (80%) did not report the number of disabled participants included. The two (8%) that did included students with developmental dyslexia ( n  = 27 across the two studies; Andresen et al., 2019a , 2019b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ). The number of multilingual participants was reported in 15 studies (60%), with percentages ranging from 0% (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ; Florit, De Carli, et al., 2020 ) to 72% (Davis et al., 2017 ). Sixteen studies (64%) reported participants’ socioeconomic status. Of these, 14 reported that their samples were largely homogenous and from middle-class families. In the other two studies, participants came from lower socioeconomic families.

Features of Tasks, Measures, and Documents

In each study, participants performed a task requiring them to independently read a set of multiple documents. The most common task ( k  = 16, 64%) involved having participants read the documents for the purpose of writing an essay. These included writing arguments ( k  = 9, 36%), opinions ( k  = 1, 4%), or combinations of arguments and summaries/syntheses ( k  = 5, 20%). In other studies, participants answered verification questions ( k  = 6, 24%), oral open-ended questions ( k  = 2, 8%), multiple-choice questions ( k  = 1, 4%), or application questions ( k  = 1, 4%). In 16 of the studies (64%), participants were provided with information about the document source (e.g., author, publication, date).

The number of documents per set ranged from 2 to 10 (mean = 4.72, SD  = 1.86), with an average of 2.6 (SD = 0.54) at the elementary level and 5.25 (SD = 1.68) at the secondary. In several studies, participants read multiple sets of documents (e.g., Beker et al., 2019 ; Mason et al., 2020 ), bringing the total number of documents read between 2 and 40. In all the studies, the documents were informational rather than narrative. Most studies ( k  = 23, 92%) involved document sets that addressed socioscientific topics (e.g., human impact on climate change) and presented a combination of complementary and contrasting viewpoints ( k  = 18, 72%). Of the 20 (80%) studies that reported document format, nine (36%) used only digital documents, ten (40%) used only print documents, and one (4%) used both. Ten (40%) studies reported whether multimedia documents (e.g., text with image) were used. Of these, multimedia documents were used in six (24%) text only documents in four (16%). Seventeen studies (68%) reported efforts to evaluate text difficulty. In each case, a readability formula was used. Several also reported consulting with content-area experts in developing the texts.

Generally similar tasks, measures, and document formats were used at the elementary and secondary levels. For both levels, argumentative essays and inference verification questions were used to measure intertextual integration. However, application questions were used only at the elementary level and multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, and summary essays were used only at the secondary level. At both levels, print and digital formatted documents were used. Finally, the average number of documents per set differed across these two developmental spans, with a mean 2.6 (SD = 0.55) at the elementary level and 5.25 (SD = 1.68) at the secondary level.

Associations with Individual Differences

Tables 2 – 4 report zero-order correlations between performance on measures of intertextual integration and measures of individual differences in language and literacy, cognition and metacognition, knowledge and beliefs, and motivation, emotion, and personality. Results are discussed in the following four sections. To avoid redundancy, we provide information about the participants (e.g., nationality, age, sample size) and measures only once for each study.

Language and Literacy

Eighteen studies (72%) examined associations among intertextual integration, language, and literacy (see Table  1 ). Single-document comprehension was the most studied ( k  = 12, 48%), followed by word-level reading ( k  = 6, 24%), and then a variety of other factors (e.g., strategy knowledge). In the following sections, we discuss results first for elementary- and then secondary-level participants.

Elementary-Level. Four studies (16%) examined associations between intertextual integration and literacy factors among elementary-level students. Three of these examined associations with single document comprehension. Beker et al., 2019 ) had fourth- and sixth-grade Dutch children ( n  = 105) read 20 brief (i.e., about eight sentences) expository text pairs (40 individual texts in total). In each pair, the second text contained an internal inconsistency. Across pairs, they randomly varied whether the first text contained an explanation that could help to resolve the inconsistency presented in the second text. To assess intertextual integration, they asked participants open-ended questions after every fourth pair of texts. They assessed single document comprehension by having participants answer multiple-choice questions about several brief texts. They found an association of r  = 0.39 ( p  < 0.001) between these two factors.

In two studies, Florit and colleagues (Florit, Cain, Mason, 2020 ; Florit et al. 2020 ) had Italian participants complete two multiple document tasks that each involved reading three texts about a socioscientific issue (e.g., “Are videogames beneficial?”) and then writing an argumentative essay (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ; Florit et al., 2020 ). They assessed single-document comprehension by having students answer inferential and literal questions about an informational text. Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) found associations of r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.15 ( p  < 0.05) between single document comprehension and intertextual integration for a sample of fourth- and fifth-grade students ( n  = 184).

With a separate sample of fourth-grade students ( n  = 94), Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) found associations of r  = 0.23 ( p  < 0.05) and r  = 0.47 ( p  < 0.01). In the same study, they also assessed students’ comprehension monitoring with a task that measured their ability to detect inconsistencies in 24 six-sentence texts. Correlations between comprehension monitoring and intertextual integration were r  = 0.22 ( p  < 0.05) and r  = 0.35 ( p  < 0.01).

Three studies involving Italian children also examined associations between word reading fluency and intertextual integration. Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) had fourth-grade students ( n  = 94) read 112 words and 48 non-words as quickly as they could; for their analyses, they combined scores from these two tasks. Correlations between word-level reading and intertextual integration were r  = 0.14 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.36 ( p  < 0.01). Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) tested a separate sample of four- and fifth-grade students ( n  = 184) with the same word-level reading and intertextual integration tasks, and found correlations of r  = 0.10 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.16 ( p  < 0.05). Finally, Raccanello et al. ( 2022 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.21 ( p  < 0.001) between fourth- and fifth-grade students’ ( n  = 334) word reading fluency and intertextual integration, as measured by an argumentative essay based on a document set.

Secondary-Level. Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations between intertextual integration and literacy factors among secondary-level students. Nine (36%) measured students’ single document comprehension, three of which were conducted by Bråten and colleagues and involved Norwegian students enrolled in college preparatory or prevocational courses. Bråten et al. ( 2018 ) had participants ( n  = 127) complete a cloze comprehension measure involving narrative and expository texts. They randomly divided students into two groups, each assigned to read a document set of ten texts about either climate change or nuclear power. To measure intertextual integration, they had students in both conditions write argumentative essays based on the document sets. Correlations between single document comprehension and intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.20 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.28 ( p  < 0.05).

Strømsø and Bråten ( 2009 ) had participants ( n  = 282) read a document set comprising seven texts on different aspects of climate change. After reading, they assessed students’ single document comprehension for each of texts using sentence and intratextual inference verification measures; scores were summed across texts for analyses. They also had students complete an intertextual inference verification task based on the document set that they had read. They found an association of r  = 0.52 ( p  < 0.001) between intertextual integration and sentence verification (single document comprehension), and a correlation of r  = 0.54 ( p  < 0.001) between intertextual integration and intratextual integration (single document comprehension). Finally, Strømsø et al. ( 2010 ) had participants ( n  = 233) complete intratextual and intertextual inference verification tasks based on the same set of seven text documents and found a correlation of r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01) between them.

de Ruyter ( 2020 ) had Dutch prevocational students ( n  = 83) write argumentative essays after reading a set of four digital documents. They measured students’ single document comprehension by having them read five texts, and after each, answering a series of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. They found a correlation of r  = 0.28 ( p  < 0.05) between these two variables. Finally, Wang et al. ( 2021 ) had US ninth-twelfth students’ ( n  = 1107) read four digital text documents and measured their intertextual integration with a multiple-choice and yes/no questions. To measure single document comprehension, they had students read 10 short passages and answer questions about key ideas and details for each. The correlation between these two variables was r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01).

Four studies examined associations among single document comprehension and intertextual integration among seventh-grade students. Mason and colleagues conducted three with Italian students (samples ranged from 47 to 104). In each, they used a multiple-choice task to measure single document comprehension and an argumentative essay task to measure intertextual integration. Across these studies, correlations between these two variables ranged from r  = 0.18 ( p  > 0.05; Mason et al., 2017 ) to r  = 0.48 ( p  < 0.01; Mason et al., 2020 ). Mason et al. ( 2017 ) also measured single document comprehension with a sentence verification task and found a correlation of r  = 0.13 ( p  > 0.05) between it and intertextual integration. Forzani ( 2016 ) had US seventh-grade students’ ( n  = 1434) complete an online research and comprehension assessment. As part of this, they assessed students’ ability to synthesize information (i.e., intertextual integration) by writing argumentative essays. They also assessed students’ single document comprehension by having them read several brief passages and answer multiple-choice questions about them. The correlation between single document comprehension and intertextual integration was r  = 0.37 ( p  < 0.01).

Six studies examined associations among word-level reading and intertextual integration. In each, researchers used measures that involved reading from word lists with accuracy and speed (i.e., fluency). Three involved Norwegian students and used a word chain task involving 360 words arranged in 30 rows. Across these studies, correlations between word chain reading (i.e., word-level reading) and intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.16 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.43 ( p  < 0.001). Bråten et al., ( 2013a , 2013b ) had tenth-grade students ( n  = 65) read six digital text documents and assessed their intertextual integration by having them write brief essays. The correlation between word-level reading and intertextual integration was r  = 0.43 ( p  < 0.001). Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ) also examined the association between word-level reading and intertextual integration with tenth-grade students ( n  = 44), half of whom were neurotypical in reading (i.e., > 20th percentile on a national standardized reading test) and half of whom had school-based diagnoses of developmental dyslexia. Participants viewed three webpages containing information presented through video, text, and pictures. Intertextual integration was assessed by having students orally respond to two open-ended questions about the document set. They found an association of r  = 0.45 ( p  < 0.01) between word reading and intertextual integration for the entire sample. Finally, Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) had college preparatory students ( n  = 59) read six printed documents about assessed intertextual integration with an inference verification task. The correlation between this and word-level reading was r  = 0.22 ( p  > 0.05).

Beyond word level reading and single document comprehension, researchers also examined associations between intertextual and several additional language and literacy skills. For example, Davis et al. ( 2017 ) examined associations among US fifth- to seventh-grade students’ intertextual integration and receptive ( r  = 0.47, p  < 0.01) and productive syntax ( r  = 0.24, p  < 0.05). To measure intertextual integration, they had students read two informational texts about a scientific issue and then complete a sentence and inference verification task. Wang et al. ( 2021 ) found an association of r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01) between US ninth-twelfth grade students’ sentence processing and intertextual integration.

Finally, Cheong et al. ( 2019 ) examined the association between intertextual integration and written composition among secondary-level Hong Konger students ( n  = 415). They presented students with two, parallel-structured multiple documents tasks in Chinese (L1) and English (L2). For both tasks, students read six documents. They measured intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese and English with inference verification and argumentative essay tasks, respectively. Associations between Chinese intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese ( r  = 0.41, p  < 0.01) and English ( r  = 0.28, p  < 0.05) were similar to associated between English intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese ( r  = 0.30, p  < 0.01) and English ( r  = 0.41, p  < . 01).

Cognition and Metacognition

Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations between intertextual integration, cognition, and metacognition (Table  2 ). Of these, five (20%) examined associations between verbal working memory and intertextual integration, with correlations ranging from r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.538 ( p  < 0.001). Two were conducted with elementary-level students. Beker et al. ( 2019 ) measured Dutch fourth- and sixth-grade children’s ( n  = 105) verbal working memory with a task adapted from Daneman and Carpenter ( 1980 ). They had students listen to sets of unrelated sentences, answer a comprehension-related question about one of them, and then recall the last word of each sentence. Performance on this task correlated r  = 0.13 ( p  = 0.183) with intertextual integration, as measured by the open-ended questions task described in the preceding section (Beker et al., 2019 ). Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) measured fourth-grade Italian students’ ( n  = 94) verbal working memory with a task involving six lists of nouns. For each list, students had to remember and write down the nouns representing the three smallest objects in the list, and in the order in which they were presented. Correlations between performance on this working memory task and the two intertextual integration measures described above were r  = 0.18 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.22 ( p  < 0.05).

The three studies that examined associations between intertextual integration and verbal working memory with secondary-level students, all measured working memory with a version of a task developed by Daneman and Carpenter ( 1980 ). As described above for Beker et al. ( 2019 ), Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ), and Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) had students listen to sets of sentences, answer comprehension-related questions about them, and then recall the last word of each. Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ) found a correlation of r  = 0.54 ( p  < 0.001) between Norwegian tenth-grade students’ ( n  = 44) working memory and intertextual integration, as measured with the oral opened-ended questions task described in the preceding section. Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.29 ( p  < 0.05) between Norwegian secondary-level students ( n  = 59) working memory and intertextual integration, as measured by the inference verification task also described above. Mason et al. ( 2017 ) adapted the working memory task to have students read the sentences themselves. They found that performance on this task correlated r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) with intertextual integration, as measured with the previously described argumentative essay task.

Twelve (48%) studies examined associations between metacognition and intertextual integration. Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) measured Italian fourth-grade children’s ( n  = 94) comprehension monitoring by assessing their ability to detect inconsistencies in stories with and without inconsistent sentences. They found that comprehension monitoring was weakly but significantly associated with intertextual integration ( r s = 0.22–0.35, p  < 0.05), as measured by two essay tasks. Braasch et al. ( 2022 ) examined the association between sixth-grade US students ( n  = 54) metacognitive awareness and an argumentative essay task. They measured metacognitive awareness by having students rate items designed to measure their knowledge and regulation of cognition. They found that metacognitive scores were weakly correlated with students’ inclusion of belief-consistent ( r  = 0.11 ( p  > 0.05) and belief-inconsistent ( r  = 0.10 ( p  > 0.05) ideas in their writing. Davis et al. ( 2017 ) examined associations between intertextual integration and fifth- through seventh-grade US students’ ( n  = 83) comprehension strategy knowledge (i.e., predicting and verifying predictions, previewing, purpose setting, self-questioning, using background knowledge, and summarizing; r  = 0.23, p  < 0.05) and strategy awareness/use ( r  = 0.05, p  > 0.05). Bråten et al. ( 2014 ) surveyed Norwegian students in the first year of secondary school ( n  = 279) about their use of strategies for comparing, contrasting, and integrating multiple texts, finding a correlation of r  = 0.36 ( p  < 0.001) between this and intertextual integration. Cheong et al. ( 2019 ) surveyed students’ use of self-regulatory, discourse synthesis, and test-taking strategies before, during, and after writing. They found this to be weakly correlated with intertextual integration measured in Chinese ( r  = 0.10, p  < 0.05) and English ( r  = 0.19, p  < 0.01). Finally, Stang Lund et al. ( 2019 ) assessed secondary-level Norwegian students’ ( n  = 86) knowledge and potential use of reading strategies, such as how they would deal with information about scientific issues presented in various media sources. They found a moderate association between students’ comprehension strategies and their intertextual integration ( r  = 0.29, p  < 0.05), as measured by a verification task.

Ten (40%) studies examined associations between intertextual integration and document sourcing skills. Only one involved students at the elementary level (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). In that study, students’ essays were coded for intertextual integration and the inclusion of source-content links, with the correlation between them being r  = 0.24 ( p  < 0.05). A variety of sourcing dimensions were examined in nine (36%) studies involving secondary-level students. These included students’ source selection (Bråten et al., 2018 ; Forzani, 2016 ), source evaluation (Braasch et al., 2014 ; Forzani, 2016 ), links made between sources and their contents (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2018 ), and memory for sources (Stang Lund et al., 2019 ; Strømsø et al., 2010 ). Intertextual integration was measured with essay tasks in six of these studies and with verification tasks in three. Associations between intertextual integration and sourcing were all positive and small to moderate in magnitude (range = 0.05 to 41).

Knowledge and Beliefs

Nineteen studies (76%) examined associations among students’ knowledge, beliefs, and intertextual integration (Table  3 ). At the elementary level, Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) assessed Italian fourth- and fifth-grade students’ topic knowledge, general vocabulary knowledge, and theory of mind. Correlations with their two measures of intertextual integration were as follows: topic knowledge = 0.08–0.15, vocabulary = 0.24–0.27, and theory of mind = 0.15–0.26. Davis et al. ( 2017 ) assessed US fifth- through seventh-grade students’ topic knowledge, general vocabulary knowledge, morphological knowledge, and two measures of epistemic beliefs: stability and structure of knowledge. Associations among intertextual integration and performance on these measures were as follows: topic knowledge = 0.42 ( p  < 0.01), general vocabulary knowledge = 0.56 ( p  < 0.01), morphological knowledge = 0.52 ( p  < 0.01), stability of knowledge =  − 0.10 ( p  > 0.05), and structure of knowledge = 0.27 ( p  < 0.05).

At the secondary level, researchers examined associations among intertextual integration and domain knowledge ( k  = 1), topic knowledge ( k  = 18), epistemic beliefs ( k  = 7), and vocabulary and morphological knowledge ( k  = 2). Wang et al. ( 2021 ) assessed US ninth-twelfth grade students’ domain knowledge with 25-item multiple-choice tests in history and science. Correlations with performance on an intertextual integration task about American football were r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01) for history and r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01) for science. They also assessed students’ knowledge of football, which was slightly less correlated with intertextual integration ( r  = 0.50, p  < 0.01). Topic knowledge was assessed in ten studies with multiple-choice tests (Andresen et al., 2019a , 2019b ; Bråten et al., 2014 , 2018 , 2013a , 2013b ; Stang Lund et al., 2017 ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ; Strømsø et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), in five with open-ended questions (Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017 ; Braasch et al., 2014 ; Mason, 2018 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2020 ), in one with a verification task (Davis et al., 2017 ), and in two with rating scales (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Griffin et al., 2012 ). Correlations with intertextual integration ranged between − 0.03 (Strømsø et al., 2016 ) and 0.50 (Wang et al., 2021 ). Given the variation in how topic knowledge and intertextual integration were measured across these studies, patterns in the magnitude of these correlations are unclear. Moreover, the smallest and largest correlations were both found with secondary-level students and used multiple-choice tests to measure topic knowledge (Strømsø et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). However, these studies differed in the number (4 vs. 5) and format (digital vs. print) of the texts, the topic (American football vs. health), language (American English vs. Norwegian), and how intertextual integration was measured (multiple choice vs. essay).

Additionally, two studies (8%) examined associations among intertextual integration, vocabulary, and morphological knowledge. Results from Davis et al. ( 2017 ) were discussed above. Wang et al. ( 2021 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.50 ( p  < 0.01) between intertextual integration and morphology and r  = 0.54 ( p  > 0.05) with vocabulary.

Epistemic beliefs were assessed in eight studies (32%) with a variety of methods. For example, Barzilai and Ka’adan ( 2017 ) used a scenario-based approach to assess students’ topic-specific perspectives (i.e., absolutism, multiplism, evaluativism) about the nature, sources, certainty, validity, and justification of knowledge. In contrast, Strømsø et al. ( 2016 ) assessed students’ beliefs in the justification of knowledge by personal accounts, authority figures, or multiple sources. Across the studies, correlations with intertextual integration ranged from r  =  − 0.04 (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ) to r  =  − 0.43 (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ). This wide range is expected, as the direction and magnitude of association is thought to vary by belief type (Bråten et al., 2011 ).

Motivation, Emotion, and Personality

Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations among students’ intertextual integration, motivation ( k  = 11), emotion ( k  = 4), and personality ( k  = 2) (Table  4 ). At the elementary-level, Raccanello et al. ( 2022 ) examined how Italian fourth- and fifth-grade students’ performance on an intertextual integration task was associated with how they valued the task ( r  = 0.18, p  < 0.01) and their level of boredom with it ( r  =  − 0.05, p  > 0.05). At the secondary level, studies examined associations between intertextual integration and several dimensions of motivation: self-efficacy (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ), task value (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ), effort (de Ruyter, 2020 ), engagement (de Ruyter, 2020 ), and interest (Bråten et al., 2014 , 2018 ; Griffin et al., 2012 ; Stang Lund et al., 2017 ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ; Strømsø et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Correlations were all small and in the range of − 0.04 to 0.39.

Three studies (12%), all involving Italian seventh-grade students, examined associations between intertextual integration and emotion (Mason, 2018 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2020 ). In each study, students’ emotional reactivity was assessed during reading with a heart rate monitor. Correlations with intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.02 ( p  > 0.05; Mason et al., 2017 ) to r  = 0.25 ( p  > 0.05; Mason, 2018 ). Two studies, both with secondary-level Norwegian students, examined associations between intertextual integration and personality. Bråten et al. ( 2014 ) found an association of r  = 0.14 between students’ need for cognition and their intertextual integration performance. Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) found an association of r  = 0.02 ( p  > 0.05) between intertextual integration and an entity theory of intelligence (i.e., fixed mindset); the correlation with an incremental theory of intelligence (i.e., growth mindset) was r  = 0.19 ( p  > 0.05).

We begin this section by discussing characteristics of the participants that have been studied (research question 1) and features of the tasks and materials that have been used (research question 2). We then discuss what types of individual differences factors have been studied (research question 3) and what has been learned about their associations with intertextual integration (research question 4). We will then conclude by offering four recommendations for future research.

Research Questions 1 and 2: Participant Characteristics and Materials

Given the many potential ways that multiple document comprehension has been studied, we were interested in first taking stock of the types of participants, tasks, measures, and documents that have been used. As predicted, there was wide variation in each of these parameters. However, certain grade levels, tasks, measures, and types of documents were examined more frequently than others.

As expected, we located more studies involving secondary- than elementary-level participants. At the secondary level, participants ranged from grade 6 to 12. Although it was encouraging to find that intertextual integration had been studied with elementary-level children, only five did so and none involved children below grade 4. Furthermore, few authors reported clear inclusion/exclusionary criteria and demographic information.

Nonetheless, several findings are important to discuss. First, individuals with disabilities were clearly included in only two studies, both of which were at the secondary level. Moreover, in several studies, disabled participants were purposely excluded. Second, in contrast to most other reading research (Share, 2008 ), relatively few studies involved English L1 participants. Finally, of the few studies that reported information about participants’ socioeconomic status, most were from middle-class backgrounds. We were limited, though, by our decision to include only studies reported in English. It may studies reported in other languages include more diverse populations. Nonetheless, we can draw two clear conclusions. First, improved demographic reporting is needed to better understand to whom these findings may apply. Second, efforts are needed to study more diverse populations, to include individuals with disabilities, those from different socioeconomic strata, individuals from non-Western societies, and those who speak multiple languages.

Tasks, Measures, and Documents

Consistent with Primor and Katzir’s ( 2018 ) findings, we found that intertextual integration was measured in a variety of ways, with essay tasks being the most widely used. The reason for this is unclear. It may be that essays are viewed as a particularly valid form of assessment. However, few studies clearly defined intertextual integration or provided a justification for why and how they selected their measure(s). Perhaps as a result, even with the stringent inclusion criteria that we set, we are not confident that the same construct was measured in each of the studies. For the field to advance, work is needed to better define intertextual integration and to develop more standardized and comparable methods for measuring it (Flake & Fried, 2020 ).

In contrast, there was consistency in the genres, structures, and topics of the documents. This allowed for much clearer comparisons across studies, particularly when considering associations with topic, domain, and disciplinary knowledge. Interestingly, the documents were nearly evenly split between print and digital formats. Although print documents still have a place in formal educational settings, they are quickly being replaced by digital ones. There is a pressing need, then, to better understand how young readers process and comprehend information distributed across multiple digital documents.

Research Questions 3 and 4: Individual Differences Factors and Intertextual Integration

In research questions 2 and 4, we asked what types of individual differences factors had been examined and the direction and strength of their associations with intertextual integration. As predicted, a wide range of individual differences factors had indeed been examined. However, few appeared in more than one study. Therefore, although nearly all were positively correlated with intertextual integration, variation in the samples, tasks, measures, and documents greatly limit what can be concluded about these relations.

Language and literacy were investigated in 72% ( k  = 18) of the studies. This was somewhat unexpected; although language and literacy are acknowledged as an obviously important factor in intertextual integration, they have received less attention than other factors in in frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use (see Table A1 ). This is likely because most theorizing has been based on secondary, undergraduate, and adult readers, for whom word-level reading and single document comprehension skills are likely assumed to be well developed. Nonetheless, it would appear safe to assume that intertextual integration depends on both skillsets.

Only six studies examined word-level reading skills. Results indicated small associations with intertextual integration (0.14 to 0.36) in the upper elementary grades and small to moderate associations (0.22 to 0.45) at the secondary level. Word-level reading has been clearly shown to affect single document comprehension performance (Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ). Although these six studies are not much to draw strong conclusions from, they do suggest a role for word-level reading in intertextual integration as well. Interestingly, the three elementary-level studies were conducted in Italian. In comparison to English, Italian has a relatively transparent alphabetic writing system (i.e., clear and consistent mappings between units of sound and print), which on average, proves easier for learning to read and write (Job et al., 2006 ). The three secondary-level studies were conducted in English and Norwegian, which in comparison to Italian, have considerably more opaque alphabetic systems (Hagtvet et al., 2006 ; Perfetti & Harris, 2017 ). Consequently, in addition to developmental differences, these writing system differences further complicate how we might interpret the results.

Across the 12 (48%) studies that examined single document comprehension, the magnitude of associations with intertextual integration ranged widely (0.06 to 0.57). A variety of factors undoubtedly account for this variation. Among them, the different ways that both constructs were measured likely played a role. For example, the smallest association was found in a study involving fourth- and fifth-grade Italian students (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). Intertextual integration was assessed with an argumentative essay task and single document comprehension with a standardized measure of inferential and literal questions. In the two studies with the largest associations (Strømsø et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), there was much closer alignment between the single and multiple document comprehension measures. In both studies, for example, the single document comprehension and intertextual integration measures involved texts written about the same topics and used the same response formats. In one of the studies (Strømsø et al., 2010 ), the same texts were even used for both measures. Different approaches to measuring single document comprehension tap different underlying skills (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 ; Keenan et al., 2008 ), and therefore, single indicators of single document comprehension should be not assumed to be interchangeable (Clemens & Fuchs, 2022 ). The same likely holds for measures of intertextual integration, which introduce even greater complexity. In sum, we can conclude from these results only that there is emerging evidence of associations between literacy skills—both word-level and comprehension focused—and intertextual integration.

Given the complexity of involved with intertextual integration, many cognitive and metacognitive skills have been hypothesized to play important roles (Follmer & Tise, 2022 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ; see also Table A1 ). Cognition and metacognition were examined in a little over half (56%, k  = 14) of the studies, with cognition examined in five (20%) and metacognition in nine (36%).

From among the multitude of cognitive variables (e.g., working memory, attention, intelligence) and operations (e.g., searching, monitoring, assembling, rehearsing, translating; Winne, 2018 ) that have been discussed within the multiple document literature, only verbal working memory was examined in these studies. Across the studies, associations between verbal working memory and intertextual ranged widely from r  = 0.05 to r  = 0.54. Although similar methods were used to measure verbal working memory, the number of studies was small and there was wide variation in the sampled populations, documents, and tasks. Accordingly, the results provide little insight into how individual differences in cognition—broadly or narrowly defined—are associated with intertextual integration. This stands in stark contrast to the extensive body of work that has examined associations between cognition, word-level reading, and single document comprehension (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2018 ; Follmer, 2018 ; Peng et al., 2018 , 2022 ).

Metacognition was examined in 12 (48%) of the studies. In two of these, metacognitive strategy knowledge was assessed (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Davis et al., 2017 ), with results showing small associations with intertextual integration. Results were mixed, though, for the three that examined metacognitive strategy use. In one study, the association between strategy use and intertextual integration was small and insignificant (Davis et al., 2017 ), However, in the other two, the relations were both moderate and signification (Bråten et al., 2014 ; Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). These results suggest that while knowledge of metacognitive strategies is unrelated to intertextual integration, actual metacognitive strategy use may be. However, with only four studies—and large differences in the populations and materials used among them—any conclusions are at best tentative.

Sourcing skills were examined in ten studies (40%). As noted above, a variety of sourcing skills were examined, to include source selection, source evaluation, source-content links, and source memory. Results ranged from almost no association ( r  = 0.05) to one of moderate magnitude ( r  = 0.41). This wide range is likely due to variation in the dimensions of sourcing that were examined, the different ways intertextual integration was measured, and differences in the populations that were sampled. In sum, it appears that various dimensions of sourcing may be differentially associated with intertextual integration.

Knowledge and beliefs appeared in 19 studies (76%), the most frequent of the four individual differences categories. Correlations with intertextual integration ranged widely (− 0.39 to 0.57). The bulk of studies involved secondary-level participants and examined associations between topic/domain knowledge and intertextual integration. Vocabulary and morphological knowledge were examined in four studies (16%). Various dimensions of knowledge, spanning from word to disciplinary, have been discussed extensively in theories of single and multiple document comprehension (Alexander, 2005 ; Goldman et al., 2016 ; Kintsch, 1988 ; Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ). As Kintsch ( 1974 , p. 10) observed, for example, “understanding a text…consists of assimilating it with one’s general store of knowledge…[s]ince every person’s knowledge and experience is somewhat different…the way in which different people understand the same text may not always be the same.” Knowledge in its various forms is generally understood to facilitate comprehension and learning (Ackerman, 1991 ; Alexander et al., 1994 ; Cabell & Hwang, 2020 ; Hwang et al., 2022 ). However, in certain cases, it can be an impediment (Simonsmeier et al., 2022 ). For instance, one’s knowledge of a topic can stand stubbornly in the way of learning new concepts (Vosniadou, 1992 ). Furthermore, possessing relevant knowledge does not ensure that it will be effectively used to aid comprehension. Indeed, Wolfe and Goldman ( 2005 ) found that some adolescents sometimes use their background knowledge to make irrelevant elaborations that do help in building a coherent multiple document representation.

As many have noted, there is unfortunately little consistency in how knowledge is conceptualized, defined, and measured (Alexander et al., 1991 ; McCarthy & McNamara, 2021 ; Murphy et al., 2012 , 2018 ). This was certainly what we found. Although the bulk of studies examined topic knowledge, this was done in a variety of ways. Moreover, the specific topics that were examined varied across studies. It is unclear, then, how comparable scores from these different measures may be. Additionally, few studies examined more than one dimension of knowledge. In any study, it is perhaps impossible to measure the full extent of a single domain or discipline much less multiple. However, the narrow focus on topic knowledge in this literature provides little insight into how other dimensions (e.g., domain, disciplinary) may influence intertextual integration. Nonetheless, it appears from these studies that knowing something of the documents’ topic, domain, or discipline is associated with better intertextual integration.

Epistemic beliefs were examined in seven studies (28%). Much research has shown that epistemic beliefs are an important factor in learning (Mason, 2010 ) and that variation in them is associated with literacy performance (Bråten et al., 2016 ; Lee et al., 2016 ). This may be the case particularly when engaging with multiple documents of varying quality and perspectives (Bråten et al., 2011 ; Strømsø & Kammerer, 2016 ). Consistent with previous research (Bråten et al., 2011 ), results indicated that endorsing certain beliefs is associated with better intertextual integration than others. For example, Davis et al. ( 2017 ) found that the belief that knowledge is singular and absolute was more weakly associated with intertextual integration ( r  =  − 0.10) than the belief that there are multiple forms of knowledge but that certain forms are more valid than others ( r  = 0.27). There were similar patterns in several of the other studies (Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017 ; Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ). Using a slightly different framework, Bråten et al., ( 2013a , 2013b ) found that intertextual integration was negatively associated with beliefs that knowledge is justified by personal knowledge (− 0.43) and authority (− 0.08), but positively associated with the belief that it is justified by multiple sources (0.17). In sum, whereas absolutist beliefs about knowledge (i.e., “knowledge come from an external source and is certain,” Kuhn, 1999 , p. 23) appear to be negatively associated with intertextual integration, multiplist or evaluative beliefs (“knowledge comes from human minds and is uncertain,” Kuhn, 1999 , p. 23) appear to be positively correlated. However, due to the variability in how epistemic beliefs were measured and considerable differences in the tasks, document sets, and participants involved, more research is needed to confirm the robustness of these findings. It is important to also note that in addition to individual differences, beliefs can vary across cultures (Buehl, 2008 ). Further research is therefore needed to systematically examine how epistemic beliefs may shape multiple document use and comprehension across different conditions, points in development, and cultural contexts.

The final category represents a broad mixture of affective processes and personality variables. Motivational factors (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, task value) appeared the most frequently ( k  = 11, 44%). Whereas there is no evidence that self-efficacy is meaningfully associated with intertextual integration (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ), several studies reported small to moderate associations with interest and task value. As has become a common theme in this review, wide variation in the tasks, documents, and participants renders what can be claimed about any potential patterns unclear.

Emotion was examined in three studies (12%), all with Italian seventh-grade participants, representing a rare case of systematic replication. Correlations for these three studies ranged from − 0.28 to 0.02. Not much can be concluded from this other than that certain emotions, such as boredom, appear to be negatively associated with intertextual integration. Future work should examine how motivation and emotion interact with specific types of documents and tasks over microperiods (e.g., minutes, hours) and macroperiods (e.g., days, months, years) of development (e.g., Neugebauer & Gilmour, 2020 ).

Personality was examined in only two studies (8%), both of which involved Norwegian secondary-level participants. Given that they measured different facets of personality, not much can be said beyond what is reported in the individual studies. Although personality is a major branch of psychology (Burger, 2015 ), and has been shown be associated with a broad range of human functioning (Anglim et al., 2022 ; Komarraju et al., 2011 ), it has not be a topic of much interest in reading research. The small correlations observed in these two studies do not inspire much confidence that this is a promising area for much further investigation.

General Discussion

Much has been proposed about the roles that various individual differences factors play in intertextual integration (see Table A1 ). However, much of this theorizing has been based on undergraduate and adult readers. It is unclear, then, how existing conceptualizations may apply to younger readers. In this review, we did not attempt to answer that question. Rather, we examined the nature, features, and volume of research that has examined associations between individual differences and intertextual integration. These associations are shown in Fig.  3 with an evidence gap map (Polanin et al., 2022 ). The map reveals that many of the factors specified in frameworks, theories, and models listed in Table A1 have been examined alongside intertextual integration with K-12 students. Noticeably, though, the coverage is uneven and incomplete. This greatly limits what can be concluded about the reliability and generalizability of these findings. Indeed, even in the two-dimensional map, we can see that many cells are blank and that few are shaded darker than the lightest tone. Were dimensions added for contexts, tasks, documents, and additional participant characteristics, the map would reveal even sparser coverage. Although there are few fields for which such a map would be fully darkened, it is clear far more research is needed.

Evidence gap map of associations among individual difference factors and intertextual integration. Shading corresponds to the number of studies that have examined an association between a particular individual differences factor (listed along the vertical axis) and intertextual integration at particular grade level (listed along the horizontal axis). As the number of studies increases, the shading darkens. White cells indicate that no study has examined the association between that particular factor and intertextual integration at that particular grade level. Studies that involved unspecified secondary-level students are not represented. SD, single document. ESs, effect sizes (i.e., zero-order correlation coefficients)

Recommendations

As for how the field might productively advance, we offer four recommendations. First, as has been observed for the broader social sciences (Shrout & Rodgers, 2018 ), more replication is needed. Indeed, as we have noted throughout this review, no associations have been studied under similar enough conditions to discern reliable patterns. Moreover, none of the factors reviewed have been studied across the full span of K-12 development. To build a fuller and more reliable understanding of how individual differences are associated with intertextual integration, a program of replicated research is needed that carefully examines relations among specific factors across the K-12 developmental span with well specified populations and comparable tasks, measures, and document sets.

Our second recommendation is for greater attention is needed to how intertextual integration is measured. There are several examples in the literature of well-validated measures of intertextual integration and multiple document use more broadly (Goldman et al., 2013 ; Hastings et al., 2012 ; Leu et al., 2015 ). However, most of the studies in this review used unvalidated measures, with little attention matters of dimensionality, reliability, or validity. These issues are characteristic of the broader psychological field (Flake & Fried, 2020 ). Although developing a measure involves many considerations (Lane et al., 2016 ), we will focus here on four points that have gone largely unaddressed.

First, research is needed to examine the dimensionality of intertextual integration. The definition we supplied in the introduction indicates that multiple subprocesses may be involved. In all the studies we reviewed, though, intertextual integration was treated as unidimensional. However, efforts generally were not made to test this assumption. Moving forward, this should be a priority. Care should also be taken to ensure that measures are invariant across participant subgroups, to ensure that individual items are unbiased, and that tests and items are well calibrated for their targeted populations. Second, greater attention is needed to score reliability. Although many of the studies reported internal consistency estimates, few considered other types of reliability (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014 ). Moreover, some of the measures suffered from poor internal consistency. The implications of this are not trivial. For the simple bivariate relations examined in this review, measurement error can attenuate effects. In multivariate models, the effects are less predictable (Bollen, 1989 ). Accordingly, developing measures that produce reliable scores is imperative. Third, it will be important to consider the validity of different types of intertextual integration measures (e.g., inference verification, essays. That is, are certain measures better at capturing intertextual integration than others? Furthermore, how should performance on different measures be interpreted? Finally, and related to our third recommendation, research is needed to understand which measures are best suited for assessing intertextual integration at different points in development and for tracking short- and long-term growth.

Our third recommendation is for research examining the precursors and early development of intertextual integration. We found only five studies that involved elementary-level participants, and none with children below grade 4. It is possible that the complex reasoning involved in many multiple document tasks may be viewed as too challenging for young children. However, current instructional standards make it clear that beginning in kindergarten, children are expected to engage with multiple documents for a variety of purposes (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ). Although this initially involves being read multiple documents, the expectations quickly shift to children themselves reading, searching for, selecting, evaluating, and integrating multiple documents. Current theories and empirical findings provide little insight into how children first develop these skills and the factors that give rise to early and perhaps ongoing performance differences.

A large body of work has shown that even preschool-aged children can adopt a critical stance when presented with information from multiple informants (for reviews, see Harris et al., 2018 ; Mills, 2013 ). This work has yet to involve textual sources and often requires participants to select the testimony from one of several informants rather than to integrate information from among them. Nonetheless, the insights garnered from research on the early development of source memory and evaluation may provide an entry point into understanding how children later develop multiple document use skills.

Young children are already exposed to multiple text documents in many early literacy programs. Take for instance a first-grade lesson from a language arts curriculum (Author, 2013 ) used in approximately 20% of US schools (Kaufman et al., 2017 ). In the lesson, children are read different versions of the same fable and are then asked to compare them (Author, 2013 ). In other programs, young children are read multiple informational texts on the same topic (Kim et al., 2021 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2014 ). There is not an explicit focus in these programs on sourcing or intertextual integration. However, attention to these skills could easily be incorporated. Such research could provide useful insights into the early development of intertextual integration, particularly if studied alongside other literacy, cognitive, and affective factors.

Our fourth and final recommendation is to develop more formalized theories Footnote 1 of intertextual integration. The proposals listed in Table A1 have proven useful for guiding and interpreting research on the role that individual differences play in shaping intertextual integration. Indeed, many have proposed how particular factors (e.g., working memory) are involved in forming intertextual representations, with some offering hypotheses about the direction and general magnitude of these relations. However, these verbal theories are best suited for significance testing, which alone cannot corroborate a theory (Meehl, 1978 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ). Greater specificity is needed for more risky tests that could falsify or advance a theory (Frankenhuis et al., 2023 ; Gershman, 2019 ; Meehl, 1978 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ).

Formal theories and models have been used extensively in research on word-level reading and to a lesser extent on single-document comprehension (Goldman et al., 2007 ; Reichle, 2021 ). This approach has proven critical for testing how specific factors (e.g., phonological processing, background knowledge) are associated with reading (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999 ; Van Den Broek et al., 1996 ) and for understanding psychological and inter-agent processes more generally (Sun et al., 2005 ). Similar advantages may be found in developing formalized theories of intertextual integration and multiple document use. For instance, a formalized theory of intertextual integration could be used to construct a computational model. It would then be possible to test the effects of particular individual differences factors through experimental manipulations with actual and simulated data (Goldman et al., 2007 ; J. A. Greene, 2022 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ). Such work might provide useful insights into key pressure points in the processes and development of intertextual integration that could be targeted for assessment and intervention. To these ends, we recommend supplementing the proposals listed in Table A1 with formalized theories that more clearly state their constraints and explicate the circumstances under which they may be falsified.

Limitations

As with any study, this review is limited by several factors. First, although we placed no restrictions on the types of individual differences included, we adopted a much narrower approach than has been used in most previous reviews by focusing on only one component of multiple document comprehension (i.e., intertextual integration). Second, we examined only concurrent associations and included only studies that involved K-12 participants. In doing so, we omitted work that has examined other components (e.g., sourcing) and involved other populations. Furthermore, by examining only concurrent associations, we were unable to consider matters of causality, which is critical for an explanatory theory. However, we believe our approach provided for a more precise and measured assessment of findings relevant for K-12 students than has been offered in the past. Even with this more circumscribed approach, though, limitations within the literature made it difficult to find clear and reliable patterns.

In theorizing about how readers use and make sense of multiple documents, much has been hypothesized about the roles played by a wide range of cognitive and affective factors (see Table A1 ). We found that many of these have been examined in the context of K-12 students’ intertextual integration. However, much remains to be learned about how variation in them gives rise to differences in multiple document processing across the span of K-12 development. Although associations were generally positive and small to medium in magnitude, design and measurement issues greatly limit the conclusions we can draw. As Underwood ( 1975 ) noted, individual differences stand as, “…a critical test of theories as they are being born” (p. 130). We agree and believe that to better understand and ultimately improve multiple document comprehension among K-12 students, research is needed that (a) more systematically examines individual differences factors, (b) places a greater focus on early development, and (c) builds more formalized and testable theories.

A distinction is often made between formal theories and models (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020 ; Smaldino, 2023 ). A theory is generally regarded as more comprehensive than any specific model (Goldman et al., 2007 ). A formal differs from an informal theory in that it is implemented using formalisms such as mathematical equations or computer programs (Reichle, 2021 ; Smaldino, 2023 ).

References 

Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (2), 133–178.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print . The MIT Press.

Afflerbach, P. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context . Routledge.

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). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2014). Inaccuracy and reading in multiple text and Internet/hypertext environments. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 403–424). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9737.003.0024

Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3704_1

Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90 (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61 (3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061003315

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and non-linear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 201–252.

Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47 (4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511

Alexander, P., & Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2020). Relational reasoning: The bedrock of integration within and across multiple representations, documents, and perspectives. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, & P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives (pp. 401–424). Routledge.

Allen, G. (2022). Intertextuality (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a national of readers: The report of the commission on reading . The national Academy of Education, The National Institute of Education, The Center for the Study of Reading.

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2019). Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 32 (5), 1149–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., Salmerón, L., & Bråten, I. (2019). Processing and learning from multiple sources: A comparative case study of students with dyslexia working in a multiple source multimedia context. Frontline Learning Research, 7 (3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i3.451

Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (5–6), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000373

Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., Florit, E., & Mason, L. (2022). The role of individual differences in sourcing: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (2), 749–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09640-7

Author. (2013). EngageNY: Common core curriculum . Expeditionary Learning.

Baron, N. S. (2021). How We Read Now . Oxford University Press.

Book   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

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). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8

Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextualities: Volosinov, Bakhtin, literary theory, and literacy studies. In A. F. Ball & S. W. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 53–65). Cambridge University Press.

Beker, K., van den Broek, P., & Jolles, D. (2019). Children’s integration of information across texts: Reading processes and knowledge representations. Reading and Writing, 32 (3), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9879-9

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structual equations with latent variables . John Wiley & Sons.

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

Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Incremental theories of intelligence predict multiple document comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 31 , 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.012

Braasch, J. L. G., Haverkamp, Y. E., Latini, N., Shaw, S., Arshad, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2022). Belief bias when adolescents read to comprehend multiple conflicting texts. Reading and Writing, 35 (8), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10262-w

Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of multiple source use . Routledge.

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

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

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013a). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26 (3), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 879–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2

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

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of single and multiple texts. In P. P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 67–79). Routledge.

Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 41 (4), 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12247

Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L. G., & Salmerón, L. (2020). 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 5: 79–98. Routledge.

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence (pp. 209–234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Britt, M. A., Rouet, J., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading . Routledge.

van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2022). Reading comprehension I: Discourse. In The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 239–260). Wiley Blackwell.

Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 65–112). Springer.

Burger, J. M. (2015). Personality (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 801–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6

Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2021). KReC-MD: Knowledge revision with multiple documents. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y

Byrne, B. (1998). The foundation of literacy: The child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle . Psychology Press.

Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly , 55 (S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19 (1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., & Wen, H. (2019). Effects of intertextual processing on L2 integrated writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44 , 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.004

Cho, B.-Y. (2013). Adolescents’ constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical Internet reading task. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (4), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.49

Cho, B.-Y., Han, H., & Kucan, L. L. (2018). An exploratory study of middle-school learners’ historical reading in an internet environment. Reading and Writing, 31 (7), 1525–1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9847-4

Cho, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). The Guilford Press.

Clemens, N. H., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Commercially developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool’s gold? Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.415

Coiro, J. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302

Cumming, M. M., Bettini, E., & Chow, J. C. (2023). High-quality systematic literature reviews in special education: Promoting coherence, contextualization, generativity, and transparency. Exceptional Children , 001440292211465. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221146576

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Davis, D. S., Huang, B., & Yi, T. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed-methods examination of predictors and processes of multiple-text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.162

Drummey, A. B., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Developmental changes in source memory. Developmental Science, 5 (4), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00243

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3 (4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children’s single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders’ multiple-document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12288

Florit, E., De Carli, P., Giunti, G., & Mason, L. (2020). Advanced theory of mind uniquely contributes to children’s multiple-text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189 , 104708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104708

Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53 (1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295

Follmer, D. J., & Tise, J. (2022). Effects of an executive function-based text support on strategy use and comprehension–integration of conflicting informational texts. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10257-7

Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability . University of Connecticut.

Frankenhuis, W. E., Borsboom, D., Nettle, D., & Roisman, G. I. (2023). Formalizing theories of child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development , cdev.14020. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14020

Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Effects of context-induced processing operations on semantic information acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90007-9

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension . Ablex Publishing Company.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology and discourse . Routledge.

Gershman, S. J. (2019). How to never be wrong. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26 (1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1488-8

Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading . The MIT Press.

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

Goldman, S. R., Golden, R. M., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Why are computation models of text comprehension useful? In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 27–52). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027

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. 180–199). Routledge.

Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. D., Shanahan, C., & Project READI. (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

Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greene, S. (1993). The role of task in the development of academic thinking through reading and writing in a college history course. Research in the Teaching of English, 27 (1), 46–75.

Greene, J. A. (2022). What can educational psychology learn from, and contribute to, theory development scholarship? Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 3011–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09682-5

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The Role of CLEAR Thinking in Learning Science from Multiple-Document Inquiry Tasks., 1 , 16.

Hagtvet, B. E., Helland, T., & Lyster, S.-A. H. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Norwegian. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 15–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106 (3), 491–528.

Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710

Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Magliano, J. P., Goldman, S. R., & Lawless, K. (2012). Assessing the use of multiple sources in student essays. Behavior Research Methods, 44 (3), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0214-0

Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading . The MacMillan Company.

Hwang, H., Cabell, S. Q., & Joyner, R. E. (2022). Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (3), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Mulatti, C. (2006). The acquisition of literacy in Italian. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 105–120). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaufman, J., Davis, J., Wang, E., Thompson, L., Pane, J., Pfrommer, K., & Harris, M. (2017). Use of open educational resources in an era of common standards: A case study on the use of EngageNY. RAND Corporation . https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1773

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12 (3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279

Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2 , 434–456.

Kim, J. S., Relyea, J. E., Burkhauser, M. A., Scherer, E., & Rich, P. (2021). Improving elementary grade students’ science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6

Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163–182.

Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76 (6), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849.x

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (4), 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177186

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

Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., & Haladyna, T. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of test development . Routledge.

Language and Reading Research Consortium, Pratt, A., & Logan, J. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary-grade classrooms: Impacts of the let’s know! Experimental Curriculum. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9275-1

Lee, C. D., Goldman, S. R., Levine, S., & Magliano, J. P. (2016). Epistemic cognition in literary reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 165–183). Routledge.

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind . Teachers College Press.

Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (4), 441–486. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1404_2

Lemke, J. L. (2004). Intertextuality and educational research. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 3–14). Information Age Publishing.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2019). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 319–346). Routledge.

Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52 (3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(91)90065-Z

List, A. (2020). Six questions regarding strategy use when learning from multiple texts. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, & M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of strategies and strategic processing (pp. 119–140). Routledge.

List, A. (2023). Social justice reasoning when students learn about social issues using multiple texts. Discourse Processes, 60 (4–5), 244–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197692

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54 (1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514

List, A., & Sun, Y. (2023). To clarity and beyond: Situating higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking in the literature on learning from multiple texts. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (2), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09756-y

List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58 , 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003

Mackey, M. (2020). Who reads what, in which formats, and why? In E. B. Moje, P. P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research 5: 99–115. Routledge.

Magliano, J. P., McCrudden, M. T., Rouet, J.-F., & Sabatini, J. (2018). The modern reader: Should changes to how we read affect research and theory? In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (pp. 343–361). Routledge.

Magliano, J. P., Talwar, A., Feller, D. P., Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2023). Exploring thresholds in the foundational skills for reading and comprehension outcomes in the context of postsecondary readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56 (1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221087387

Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading . Penguin Press.

Many, J. E. (1996). Patterns of selectivity in drawing on sources: Examining students’ use of intertextuality across literacy events. Reading Research and Instruction, 36 (1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079609558227

Many, J. E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G., & Mitchell, E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self-directed reading-writing-research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.2

Mason, L. (2010). Beliefs about knowledge and revision of knowledge: On the importance of epistemic beliefs for intentional conceptual change in elementary and middle school students. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 258–291). Cambridge University Press.

Mason, L. (2018). Multiplicity in the digital era: Processing and learning from multiple sources and modalities of instructional presentations. Learning and Instruction, 57 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.004

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Zaccoletti, S. (2017). Emotional reactivity and comprehension of multiple online texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 58 , 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.002

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Zaccoletti, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Webpage reading: Psychophysiological correlates of emotional arousal and regulation predict multiple-text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 87 , 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.020

Mason, L., Zaccoletti, S., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., Florit, E., & Goetz, T. (2020). Reading with the eyes and under the skin: Comprehending conflicting digital texts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36 (1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12399

McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56 (3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379

McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27 (3), 226. https://doi.org/10.2307/747793

McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46 (2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

McNamara, D. S., Watanabe, M., Huynh, L., McCarthy, K. S., Allen, L. K., & Magliano, J. P. (2023). Summarizing versus rereading multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 102238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102238

McWeeny, S., Choe, J., & Norton, E. (2021). SnowGlobe: An interactive search tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. [Computer software]. 10.17605/OSF.IO/U25RN

Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 (4), 806–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806

Mills, C. M. (2013). Knowing when to doubt: Developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49 (3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029500

Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., & Li, M. (2018). Knowledge and the model of domain learning. In H. Fives & D. L. Dinsmore (Eds.), The model of domain learning: Understanding the development of expertise (pp. 19–36). Routledge.

Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A., & Muis, K. R. (2012). Knowledge and knowing: The journey from philosophy and psychology to human learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. (pp. 189–226). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-008

National Assessment Governing Board. (2021). Reading framework for the 2026 National Assessment of Educational Progress . U.S. Department of Education.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history . National Council for the Social Studies.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing . American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.

National Governors Association, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects .

National Research Council. (2012a). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012b). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . National Academies Press.

Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2022). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Neugebauer, S. R., & Gilmour, A. F. (2020). The ups and downs of reading across content areas: The association between instruction and fluctuations in reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (2), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000373

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper . Cambridge University Press.

Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124

Peng, P., Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Lee, K., Wang, T., Wang, C., Luo, J., & Lin, J. (2022). A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language mediation mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (3–4), 227–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000361

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability . Oxford University Press.

Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. (2017). Learning to read in English. In L. Verhoeven & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 347–370). Cambridge University Press.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 5–35). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch1

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Polanin, J. R., Zhang, Q., Taylor, J. A., Williams, R. T., Joshi, M., & Burr, L. (2022). Evidence gap maps in education research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2139312

Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294

Raccanello, D., Florit, E., Brondino, M., Rodà, A., & Mason, L. (2022). Control and value appraisals and online multiple‐text comprehension in primary school: The mediating role of boredom and the moderating role of word‐reading fluency. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12448

Raphael, T. E., & Boyd, F. B. (1991). Synthesizing information from multiple sources: A descriptive study of elementary students’ perceptions and performance of discourse synthesis (Elementary Subjects Center 45). Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.

Reichle, E. D. (2021). Computational models of reading: A handbook . Oxford University Press.

Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968

Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., Fried, E. I., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16 (4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569162097469

Rott, S., & Gavin, B. (2015). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: A conceptual replication study of Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Greasser and Brodowinska (2012). CALICO Journal, 32 (2), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i2.25139

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

Rouet, J., & 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).

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Gabrielsen, E., Kaakinen, J., Richter, T., & Lennon, M. (2021). PIAAC Cycle 2 assessment framework: Literacy. In The assessment frameworks for cycle 2 of the programme for the international assessment of adult competencies . Organisation for Economic Co-Operation. https://doi.org/10.1787/4bc2342d-en

Rouet, J.-F. (2005). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Ruyter, S. (2020). The effect of the cooperative jigsaw method on multiple document reading comprehension for prevocational education [Master’s Thesis]. University of Twente.

Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Studies in written language and literacy (Vol. 17, pp. 91–120). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal

Saux, G., Britt, M. A., Vibert, N., & Rouet, J. (2021). Building mental models from multiple texts: How readers construct coherence from inconsistent sources. Language and Linguistics Compass , 15 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12409

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942

Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 231–250).

Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584

Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845

Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57 (1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700

Smaldino, P. E. (2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution . Princeton University Press.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension . Rand.

Sparks, J. R., & Deane, P. (2015). Cognitively based assessment of research and inquiry skills: Defining a key practice in the English language arts: Cognitively based assessment of research and inquiry skills. ETS Research Report Series, 2015 (2), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12082

Spivey, N. N. (1995). Written discourse: A constructivist perspective. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 313–329). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.771106

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). MIT Press.

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

Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Memory for textual conflicts predicts sourcing when adolescents read multiple expository texts. Reading Psychology, 38 (4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1278417

Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32 (2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z

Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864

Strømsø, H. I., & Kammerer, Y. (2016). Epistemic cognition and reading for understanding in the internet age. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 230–246). Routledge.

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20 (3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). Beliefs about justification for knowing when ethnic majority and ethnic minority students read multiple conflicting documents. Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920080

Sun, R., Coward, L. A., & Zenzen, M. J. (2005). On levels of cognitive modeling. Philosophical Psychology, 18 (5), 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080500264248

Tarchi, C., Ruffini, C., & Pecini, C. (2021). The contribution of executive functions when reading multiple texts: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 716463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716463

Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90 (3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352

Underwood, B. J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30 (2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076759

Van Den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–188). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2 (2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537909544458

VanSledright, B. A. (2002). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom: Results from a researcher-practitioner design experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1086/499720

vanSledright, B. A., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98 (3), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/461893

Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology, 41 (4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00711.x

Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000302

Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). A tale of two tests: The role of topic and general academic knowledge in traditional versus contemporary scenario-based reading. Learning and Instruction, 73 , 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101462

Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2 , 301–311.

Williams, J. P., Kao, J. C., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., Cheng, R., & DeBonis, D. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (8), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117

Wineburg, S. 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

Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 36–48). Routledge.

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in the digital world . Harper Collins Publishers.

Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2

Yang, S. C. (2002). Multidimensional taxonomy of learners cognitive processing in discourse synthesis with hypermedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00031-0

Download references

Daniel R. Espinas was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant H325D180086) in the US Department of Education to Vanderbilt University. Brennan W. Chandler was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant H325H190003) in the US Department of Education to The University of Texas at Austin.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

Daniel R. Espinas

The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

Daniel R. Espinas & Brennan W. Chandler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Espinas .

Ethics declarations

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Special Education Programs or the US Department of Education.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Espinas, D.R., Chandler, B.W. Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8

Download citation

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 07 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Multiple document comprehension
• Multiple source use
• Intertextual integration
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

what is research proposal writing

• Latest Activity
• Time All Time Today Last Week Last Month
• Show All Discussions only Photos only Videos only Links only Polls only Events only

• Join Date: Feb 2024
• Posts: 10076

request what is research proposal writing

popular expository essay writers service

تسجيل الدخول إلى إجابة

الرجاء تسجيل الدخول للرد على هذا الموضوع

يرجي وصف المشكلة بوضوح.

خصوصيتك مهمة

تُستخدم ملفات تعريف الارتباط والتقنيات المماثلة على مواقعنا لتخصيص المحتوى والإعلانات. يمكنك العثور على مزيد من التفاصيل وتغيير إعداداتك الشخصية أدناه. بالنقر فوق "موافق" ، أو بالنقر فوق أي محتوى على مواقعنا ، فإنك توافق على استخدام ملفات تعريف الارتباط هذه والتقنيات المماثلة.

اللائحة العامة لحماية البيانات

When you visit any of our websites, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and manage your preferences. Please note, that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

• These cookies are necessary for our website to function properly and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you that amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms, or where they’re essential to providing you with a service you have requested. You cannot opt out of these cookies. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do, some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
• These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site, which helps us optimize your experience. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to use your data in this way.
• These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. They may be set by us or by third-party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.
• These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Writing Thesis Statement Worksheets Answer Key

Research paper: answers of a thesis statement worksheet Thesis statements expository recognizing Thesis statement practice worksheets by erika forth

50 Identifying Thesis Statement Worksheet

Thesis identify aids Thesis statement exercises worksheets with answers pdf – thekidsworksheet Thesis worksheet write essay worksheets

Thesis statements

Thesis statement practice worksheetWorksheet identifying thesis statement chessmuseum Writing thesis statement worksheet answer key – kidsworksheetfunThesis statement worksheet.docx.

Thesis statement practiceThesis statement worksheet weak strong Statement thesis answer essayThesis answers introductions strong.

50 identifying thesis statement worksheet

Thesis statement worksheet answer keyThesis writing statements quiz worksheet statement essay turn Thesis statement practice worksheets worksheet previewThesis statement worksheet answer key.

Thesis worksheet50 identifying thesis statement worksheet Thesis essayThesis statement worksheet answer key.

Sentence topic worksheet worksheets writing statement sentences thesis identifying grade school examples paragraph high whats list topics 4th write middle

Thesis statement worksheet yooob — db-excel.com50 identifying thesis statement worksheet Thesis statement writing worksheet write sentence practice activity worksheets pdf examples statements template school introduction activities fill developing teaching blankThesis statement exercises wilmu.

Thesis statement worksheet writingThesis statement worksheet answer key 7+ thesis statement examples download in word, pdfQuiz: writing thesis statements.

Thesis statement worksheet worksheets finding introduction worksheeto via

Thesis statement worksheet answer keyIdentifying thesis statement worksheet chessmuseum 14 best images of finding the introduction worksheetThesis statement.

Thesis statement exercises wilmu student writing resources marionResearch paper: answers of a thesis statement worksheet .

1st Grade Math Printables

Worksheets math grade subtraction 1st christmas kindergarten kids worksheet printable coloring addition pages preschool holiday bestcoloringpagesforkids subtract activities reading comprehension buzzb

Genetics For Kids Worksheets

Genetics variation genetic worksheet tes handout resources teaching genetics excel genetics worksheets school high reading based worksheet worksheeto genetics worksheets teaching english high activiti

Worksheets Systems Of Equations

Equations worksheeto algebra equations equation worksheets systems solving equations worksheet solving systems practice preview equations monks substitution equations solving algebra elimination homew

Maze Worksheets For Kids

Maze worksheets printable printables easy toddler kid football print practice kids mazes writing worksheet learningprintable toddlers preschool sheets alphabet kindergarten mazes maze kids printable w

Worksheets On Impulse Control

Impulse impulse impulsive behavior regulation ot coping controlling theottoolbox toolbox behaviors impulse adhd regulation delays autism raising developmental impulse anger management emotions executi

2 Digit Subtraction

Subtraction digit worksheet worksheets borrowing subtracting grade math subtract 2nd worksheetplace second questions subtraction digit regrouping worksheets grade math addition 2nd without carrying wo

5th Grade Chemistry

Chemistry 5th structure dynamics edition pogil solutions chegg experiments 5th vault experiment aid kool experiments lynda observations 4th chemistry grade 5th classroom posters store americanprep 5th

Writing Equations From A Table Worksheets

Linear equations equations teacherspayteachers graphs equation equations graphing hearne worksheet comparing functions equations key teacherspayteachers equations worksheet worksheeto equations key eq

Worksheets Money Word Problems

Worksheets worksheet mathsdiary multiplication coins mathematics grades money word problems grade math worksheets worksheet biglearners second time problems solving problems word money grade 2nd activ

About Our Alumni

Where are they now.

Our alumni work in a variety of settings such as Colleges & Seminaries in North America and abroad, Pastorates, Publishing Companies, Christian Schooling, Parachurch Ministries, and Missions Organizations.

Graduates from 2022 to 2019

Sam Ashton, Ph.D. 2022 Vicar, St. Paul's Hadley Wood, London, England.

Tyran Laws, Ph.D. 2022

Jeremy Lundgren, Ph.D. 2022

Euntaek (David) Shin, Ph.D. 2022

Chris Smith, Ph.D. 2022 Director of Student Development, Adjunct instructor in Christian Theology, Boyce College, Undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.

Johnathan Harris, Ph.D. 2021

Franklin Wang, Ph.D. 2021 Pastor, Zion Church China President, Zion Bible Institute

Kevin Wong, Ph.D. 2021 Assistant Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary Read testimonial

Ty Kieser, Ph.D. 2020 Assistant Professor of Theology, Program Director of the Master of Arts in Theological and Biblical Studies, Criswell College; Dallas, TX

Mason Lancaster, Ph.D. 2020 Adjunct Professor, Pacific Theological Seminary and Point Loma Nazarene University; San Diego, CA

Nathan LeMahieu, Ph.D. 2020 Associate Pastor of Parish Music, St. John Lutheran Church; Wheaton, IL Secondary School Teaching Faculty, Clapham School; Wheaton, IL Guest Assistant Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College; Wheaton, IL

Matthew Monkemeier Ph.D. 2020 Lead Pastor

Jonathan Taylor, Ph.D. 2020

Justin Zahraee, Ph.D. 2020

Jared Brown, Ph.D. 2019

Eva Dittman, Ph.D. 2019 Lecturer for Old and New Testament, Rhineland School of Theology; Germany

Susan Rieske, Ph.D. 2019 Assistant Professor of Bible, New Testament, Moody Bible Institute; Chicago, IL Dissertation: A Tale of Two Families: 'This Generation' and the Elect in the Book of Matthew.  (2019)

Samuel (Cooper) Smith, Ph.D. 2019 Pastor of Adult and Family Ministries, Heartland Evangelical Free Church; Annandale, MN Dissertation: Allusive and Elusive: Allusion and the Elihu Speeches of Job 32-37.  (2022)

Graduates from 2018 to 2015

Susanne Calhoun, Ph.D. 2018 Co-Pastor, Life on the Vine; Long Grove, IL

Ryan Clevenger, Ph.D. 2018 Podcast Producer, Our Daily Bread Ministries Chaplain Special Jurisdiction of Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, Anglican Church in North America

Ben Dally, Ph.D. 2018 Bivocational Church Planter, Christian and Missionary Alliance Marriage and Family Therapist, Mansio Center; Glen Ellyn, IL Dissertation: Receiving Back One’s Deeds: A Protestant Reading of Justification and Final Judgment According to Works in 2 Corinthians

Caleb Friedeman, Ph.D. 2018 David A. Case Chair of Theology and Ministry, Associate Professor of New Testament, Ohio Christian University

Craig Hefner, Ph.D. 2018 Head of School, Covenant School; Huntington, West Virginia

Daniel Hill, Ph.D. 2018 Assistant Professor of Christian Theology, Truett Seminary Books: Hill, Daniel Lee.  Gathered on the Road to Zion: Toward a Free Church Ecclesio-Anthropology .  Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020. Read testimonial

Michelle Knight, Ph.D. 2018 Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Deerfield, IL

Paul Cable, Ph.D. 2017 Ethos Dean of Academic, Dean of Student Culture, and Chair of Bible, Greater Atlanta Christian School; Atlanta, Georgia Visiting Lecturer in New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary; Atlanta, Georgia

Peter Green, Ph.D. 2017 Campus Minister, Reformed University Fellowship, West Virginia University

Daniel Lanz, Ph.D. 2017 Assistant Professor for Religious Studies, Forman Christian College; Lahore, Pakistan

Jeremy Otten, Ph.D. 2017 Associate Professor in New Testament, Evangelische Theologische Faculteit; Leuven, Belgium Dissertation: I Alone Am Left: Elijah and the Remnant in Luke-Acts.  (2021)

Ashish Varma, Ph.D. 2017 Associate Professor of Theology, Moody Bible Institute; Chicago, IL 

Jordan Barrett, Ph.D. 2016 Chair of Bible and Theology Department, South Christian High School; Grand Rapids, MI Dissertation: Divine Simplicity: A Biblical and Trinitarian Account  (2017)

Robbie Crouse, Ph.D. 2016 Professor of Systematic Theology, Knox Theological Seminary; Ft. Lauderdale, FL Dissertation: Two Kingdoms and Two Cities: Mapping Theological Traditions of Church, Culture, and Civil Order  (2017)

Carmen Imes, Ph.D. 2016 Associate Professor of Old Testament, Biola University; La Mirada, CA Books: Imes, Carmen Joy.  Being God's Image: Why Creation Still Matters . Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2023. Imes, Carmen Joy, editor.  Praying the Psalms with Augustine and Friends . Wichita, KS: TUMI Press, 2021. Imes, Carmen Joy.  Bearing God's Name: Why Sinai Still Matters .  Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019. Imes, Carmen Joy.   Illustrated Exodus in Hebrew .  GlossaHouse Illustrated Bible (Hebrew Edition). Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2017. Dissertation: Bearing YHWH's Name at Sinai: A Reexamination of the Name Command of the Decalogue  (2018) Read  testimonial

Stephanie Lowery, Ph.D. 2016 Lecturer in Theology, Academic Advisor and Program Coordinator, Africa International University; Nairobi, Kenya Part-time Lecturer and Administrator, Kalamba School of Leadership; Kenya Dissertation : Identity and Ecclesiology: Their Relationship Among Select African Theologians.  (2017)   Read  testimonial

Greg Thellman, Ph.D. 2016 Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and Lecturer in Biblical Theology, Visoko Evandeosko Teološko Učilište (Evangelical Theological Seminary); Osijek, Croatia

A. Rahel (Schafer) Wells, Ph.D. 2016 Full Professor of Hebrew Bible, Department of Religion and Biblical Languages, Andrews University; Berrien Springs, MI

James Gordon, Ph.D. 2015 Guest Professor of Philosophy and Biblical and Theological Studies, Wheaton College; Wheaton, IL Lecturer in Philosophy, North Central College; Naperville, IL Dissertation: The Holy One in Our Midst: An Essay on the Flesh of Christ  (2016) Read  testimonial

Jon Hoglund, Ph.D. 2015 Associate Professor of Theology and Global Studies, Bethlehem College and Seminary; Minneapolis, MN Dissertation: Called by Triune Grace: Divine Rhetoric and the Effectual Call  (2016)

Austin Surls, Ph.D. 2015 Assistant Professor of Old Testament Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary; Amman, Jordan Dissertation: Making Sense of the Divine Name in Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics.  (2017)

Graduates from 2014 to 2012

Michael Kibbe, Ph.D. 2014 Academic Dean and Assistant Professor of Bible, Great Northern University; Spokane, WA Books: Kibbe, Michael.  From Research to Teaching: A Guide to Beginning Your Classroom Career .  Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021. Kibbe, Michael.   From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research.   Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016. Dissertation: Godly Fear or Ungodly Failure? Hebrews 12 and the Sinai Theophanies  (2016)

Brittany Kim, Ph.D. 2014 Part-time Adjunct , Northeastern Seminary Roberts Wesleyan College Books: Kim, Brittany and Charlie Trimm.  Understanding Old Testament Theology: Mapping the Terrain of Recent Approaches .  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020. Dissertation: "Lengthen Your Tent-Cords" : The Metaphorical World of Israel's Household in the Book of Isaiah (2018)

Matthew Patton, Ph.D. 2014 Pastor, Covenant Presbyterian Church; Vandalia, OH Books: Patton, Matthew .  Deuteronomy: A 12-Week Study . Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017 . Patton, Matthew.  Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology .  BBR Supplement 16. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017. 

Henry Voss, Ph.D. 2014 Assistant Professor of Christian Ministry, Taylor University; Upland, IN Director, Sacred Roots Project Books: Anizor, Ughe, Rob Price, and Hank Voss.  Evangelical Theology .  Doing Theology Series. London: T&T Clark, 2021. Voss, Hank.  The Priesthood of All Believers and the  Missio Dei:  A Canonical, Catholic, and Contextual Approach .  Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016. Anizor, Uche, and Hank Voss.  Representing Christ: A Vision for the Priesthood of All Believe rs .  Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 2016.

Daniel Brendsel, Ph.D. 2013 Pastor, First Presbytarian Church; Hinckley, MN Books: Brendsel, Daniel J., G.K. Beale and William A. Ross.  Interpretive Lexicon of New Testament Greek: Analysis of Prepositions, Adverbs, Particles, Relative Pronouns, and Conjunctions .  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Dissertation: "Isaiah Saw His Glory": The Use of Isaiah 52-53 in John 12  (2014) 

Clayton Coombs, Ph.D. 2013 Academic Dean, Planetshakers College; Melbourne, Australia Adjunct Lecturer, Harvest Bible College; Melbourne, Australia Ministry Team Member, David McCracken Ministries Dissertation: A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark  (2016)

Jason Gile, Ph.D. 2013 Chief Innovation Officer and Dean of Strategic Initiatives, Northern Seminary; Lisle, IL Executive Director, Seminary Now Dissertation: Ezekiel and the World of Deuteronomy  (2021)

Amy Hughes,  Ph.D. 2013 Associate Professor of Theology, Gordon College; Wenham, MA Hughes, Amy with Lynn H. Cohick.  Christian Women in the Patristic World: The Influence, Authority, and Legacy in the Second through Fifth Centuries. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Read  testimonial

Matthew Newkirk, Ph.D. 2013 President and Professor of Old Testament, Christ Bible Seminary; Nagoya, Japan Books: Newkirk, Matthew.  Exodus: A 12-week Study .  Wheaton: Crossway, 2015. Newkirk, Matthew.  Fill the Earth: The Creation Mandate and the Church's Call to Missions .  Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020. Dissertation: Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel ( 2015)

Nicholas Piotrowski, Ph.D. 2013 President, Indianapolis Theological Seminary; Indianapolis, IN Books: Piotrowski, Nicholas.  In All the Scriptures: The Three Contexts of Biblical Hermeneutics . Dissertation: Matthew's New David at the End of Exile: A Socio-Rhetorical Study of Inspirational Quotations (2016)

Benjamin Ribbens, Ph.D. 2013 Professor of Theology, Trinity Christian College; Palos Heights, IL Dissertation: Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews  (2016)

Jeremy Treat, Ph.D. 2013 Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Reality LA; Los Angeles, CA Adjunct Faculty of Theology, Biola University; La Mirada, CA Books: Treat, Jeremy. Seek First: How the Kingdom of God Changes Everything .  Grand Rapids: Zondervan,  2019. Treat, Jeremy. The Atonement: An Introduction . Wheaton: Crossway, 2023. Dissertation: The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology  (2014)

Uche Anizor, Ph.D. 2012 Associate Professor of Theology, Talbot School of Theology; La Mirada, CA Books: Anizor, Uche.  Kings and Priests: Scripture's Theological Account of Its Readers . Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Anizor, Uche.  Trinity and Humanity: An Introduction to the Theology of Colin Gunton . Carlisle, UK: Pater Noster, 2016.  Anizor, Uche and Hank Voss.  Representing Christ: A Vision for the Priesthood of All Believe rs . Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2016. Read  testimonial

Michael Daling, Ph.D. 2012 Pastor, Christ's Community Church; Fort Wayne, Indiana

Jean Decorvet, Ph.D. 2012 President and Professor of Theological Studies, Haute Ecole de Theologie; St-Legier, Switzerland Visiting Professor of Historical Theology, Faculte Jean Calvin; Aix-en-Provence, France

Daniel Owens, Ph.D. 2012 Lecturer, Hanoi Bible College; Hanoi, Vietnam Senior Lecturer, Cooperative Studies; Overland Park, KS Books: Owens, Daniel and Trấn Nguyễn Hữu Thiên, Ngữ Pháp Căn Bản Tiễng Hê-bơ-rơ ( Fundamentals of Hebrew Grammar ). Hanoi, Vietnam: NXB Tôn Giáo, 2015. Dissertation: Portraits of the Righteous in the Psalms: An Exploration of the Ethics of Book 1  (2013)

Stephen Pardue, Ph.D. 2012 Program Director and Faculty of Theology, Asia Graduate School of Theology; Quezon City, Philippines Dissertation: The Mind of Christ: Humility and the Intellect in Early Christian Theology  (2013)

Charles Trimm, Ph.D. 2012 Associate Professor and Chair of Old Testament, Talbot School of Theology; La Mirada, CA Books: Trimm, Charlie. The  Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation .  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022. Trimm, Charlie.  Fighting for the King and the Gods: A Survey of Warfare in the Ancient Near East .  Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Kim, Brittany and Charlie Trimm.  Understanding Old Testament Theolog y .  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020. Dissertation: YHWH Fights for Them! The Divine Warrior in the Exodus Narrative  (2014)

Michael White, Ph.D. 2012 Associate Pastor for Family Ministry, Gainsville Baptist Church; Lincolnton, NC

Graduates from 2011 to 2005

Christopher Ansberry, Ph.D. 2011 Associate Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College Dissertation: Be Wise, My Son, and Make My Heart Glad: An Exploration of the Courtly Nature of the Book of Proverbs  (2017)

Mitchell Kim, Ph.D. 2011 Senior Pastor, Wellspring Alliance Church; Wheaton, IL

Laurie Norris, Ph.D. 2011 Professor of Bible, Moody Theological Seminary Read  testimonial

Elisee Ouoba, Ph.D. 2011 Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, Spring Arbor University; Spring Arbor, MI

Geoff Ziegler, Ph.D. 2011 Senior Pastor, Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA); Hinsdale, IL Dissertation: Free to Be Sons of God  (2018)

Christopher Bruno, Ph.D. 2010 Global Partner for Hawaii and the Pacific Islands , Training Leaders International Pastor, Kailua Baptist Church Kailua; Oahu, HI Books: Bruno, Chris, Jared Compton and Kevin McFadden.  Biblical Theology according to the Apostles: How the Earliest Christians Read the Story of Israel . New Studies in Biblical Theology. IVP, 2020. Bruno, Chris and Matthew Dirks.  Churches Partnering Together: Biblical Strategies for Fellowship, Compassion, and Evangelism .  Wheaton: Crossway, 2014. Dissertation: "God Is One": The Function of "Eis O Theos" As a Ground for Gentile Inclusion in Paul's Letters  (2013)

Chee-Chiew Lee, Ph.D. 2010 Senior Director of Advanced Studies, Associate Professor of New Testament, School of Theology, Chinese, Singapore Bible College; Singapore Books: Lee, Chee-Chiew and Cynthia Chang.  A Handbook for Research Writing: For Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Ministry-related Studies.  3rd edition. Singapore: Singapore Bible College, 2019. [Chinese] Lee, Chee-Chiew.  When Christians Face Persecution: Theological Perspectives from the New Testament .  London: Apollos (an imprint of IVP), 2022. Dissertation: The Blessing of Abraham, the Spirit, and Justification in Galatians: Their Relationship and Significance   for  Understanding Paul's Theology  (2013) Read  testimonial

Dane Ortlund, Ph.D. 2010 Senior Pastor of Naperville Presbyterian Church, Naperville, IL Books: Ortlund, Dane C.  Ministry in the New Realm: A Theology of 2 Corinthians. New Testament Theology. Edited by Tom Schreiner and Brian Rosner. Wheaton: Crossway, 2023. Ortlund, Dane C. Is Hell Real? 9 Marks Church Questions . Wheaton: Crossway, 2022. Ortlund, Dane C. Surprised by Jesus: Subversive Grace in the Four Gospels. Lancashire, England: 10Publishing, 2022. Ortlund, Dane C. Deeper: Real Change for Real Sinners . Wheaton: Crossway, 2021. Ortlund, Dane C. How Does God Change Us? Wheaton: Crossway, 2021. Ortlund, Dane C. In the Lord I Take Refuge: 150 Devotions on the Psalms . Wheaton: Crossway, 2021. Ortlund, Dane C. 2 Corinthians. ESV Expository Commentary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020. Ortlund, Dane C. Gentle and Lowly: The Heart of Christ for Sinners and Sufferers . Wheaton: Crossway, 2020. Ortlund, Dane C. A New Inner Relish: Christian Motivation in the Thought of Jonathan Edwards . Fearn, Scot.: Christian Focus, 2008. Ortlund, Dane C.  Defiant Grace: The Surprising Message and Mission of Jesus .  Darlington, UK: Evangelical, 2011. Ortlund, Dane C.  Edwards on the Christian Life: Alive to Beauty of God .  Wheaton: Crossway, 2014. Dissertation: Zeal Without Knowledge: The Concept of Zeal in Romans 10, Galatians 1, and Philippians 3  (2012) Read  testimonial

Ryan Peterson, Ph.D. 2010 Associate Professor of Theology, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University; La Mirada, CA Dissertation: The Imago Dei as Human Identity: A Theological Interpretation  (2016)

Jamie Viands, Ph.D. 2010 Lecturer in Old Testament, Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology, Africa International University; Nairobi, Kenya Dissertation: I Will Surely Multiply Your Offspring: An Old Testament Theology of the Blessing of Progeny with Special Attention to the Latter Prophets  (2013)

Jerry Hwang, Ph.D. 2009 Academic Dean and Associate Professor of the School of Theology, English, Singapore Bible College; Singapore Books:

Dissertation: The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the "Fathers" in Deuteronomy  (2012)

Michael Allen, Ph.D. 2008 Jon Dyer Trimble Professor of Systematic Theology, Academic Dean, Reformed Theological Seminary; Orlando, FL Books: Allen, Michael.  The Fear of the Lord: Essays on Theological Method .  London: T & T Clark, 2022. Allen, Michael.  The Knowledge of God: Essays on God, Christ, and Church .  London: T & T Clark, 2022. Allen, Michael. Editor, The Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020). Allen, Michael. Editor, The New Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022). Allen, Michael. Ephesians (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) ; (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2020). Dissertation: The Christ's Faith: A Dogmatic Account  (2009) Read  testimonial

Benjamin Gladd, Ph.D. 2008 Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary; Jackson, MS  Books: Gladd, Benjamin.  Handbook on the Gospels .  Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021. Gladd, Benjamin.  From the Manger to the Throne: A Theology of Luke .  Wheaton: Crossway, 2022. Gladd, Benjamin and G.K. Beale.  Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery .  Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014.  Dissertation: Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with its Bearing on First Corinthians  (2008)

Barry D. Jones, Ph.D. 2008 Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries, Dallas Theological Seminary; Dallas, TX Books: Jones, Barry.  Dwell: Life with God for the World .  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014.

Stefanos Mihalios, Ph.D. 2008 Professor of New Testament Dissertation: The Danielic Eschotologic Hour In the Johannine Literature  (2011)

Peter Spychalla, Ph.D. 2008 Associate Professor of New Testament and Spiritual Formation, Urbana Theological Seminary; Urbana, IL

Heiko Wenzel, Ph.D. 2008 Professor of Old Testament, Freie Theologische Hochschule; Gießen, Germany Dissertation: Reading Zechariah With Zechariah 1:1-6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book  (2016)

Matthew Harmon, Ph.D. 2006 Professor of New Testament Studies, Grace Theological Seminary; Winona Lake, IN Books: Harmon, Matthew S. The God Who Judges and Saves: A Biblical Theology of 2 Peter and Jude (Crossway, 2023) Harmon, Matthew S.  Galatians .  Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021. Harmon, Matthew S.  The Servant of the Lord and his Servant People: Tracing a Biblical Theme through the Canon .  New Studies in Biblical Theology 54. Downers Grove: IVP, 2020. Harmon, Matthew S.  Rebels and Exiles: A Biblical Theology of Sin and Restoration .  Essential Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 2020. Dissertation: She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul's Isaianic Gospel in Galatians  (2010)

Chris A. Vlachos, Ph.D. 2006  Retired Associate Lecturer in New Testament Studies and Program Director of Semester in Jerusalem, Wheaton College; Wheaton, IL Books: Vlachos, Chris A.  James . Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament . Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013.  Vlachos, Chris A. and Marvin R. Wilson.  A Workbook for New Testament Greek: Grammar and Exegesis in First John .  Reprint. Grand Rapids: Bake Academic, 2010.  Dissertation:  The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul  (2009)

Christopher Beetham, Ph.D. 2005 Senior Editor of Biblical Languages, Textbooks, and Reference Tools, Zondervan Publishing; Grand Rapids, Michigan Dissertation: Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians  (2010)

At present, 98% of our alumni are published.

Graduate Biblical and Theological Studies Billy Graham Hall 501 College Avenue Wheaton, IL 60187 630.752.5197 bts.graduate.studies@wheaton.edu

question archive Psychotherapy With Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders Disorders resulting from trauma are significantly different from other psychiatric-mental health issues

Psychotherapy With Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders Disorders resulting from trauma are significantly different from other psychiatric-mental health issues

Subject: Nursing Price: Bought 3

Share With -->

Psychotherapy With Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders Disorders resulting from trauma are significantly different from other psychiatric-mental health issues. Unlike disorders such as schizophrenia or major depressive disorder, trauma-related disorders do not occur randomly in the population. Instead, trauma is something that occurs as a result of the lived experience of a traumatic event. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (2017), more than half of the population will experience a traumatic event during their lifetime. Although most people will recover from the trauma on their own, some require therapeutic interventions. While there are medications that can help individuals with trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the foundation of treatment continues to be psychotherapy.  This week, you explore psychotherapy for trauma by assessing a case presentation for clients presenting with posttraumatic stress disorder. You also examine therapies for treating these clients and consider potential outcomes. Reference: National Institute of Mental Health. (2017).  Post-traumatic stress disorder  (PTSD). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd.shtml Learning Objectives Students will: Explain the neurobiological      basis for PTSD Apply assessment and      diagnostic reasoning skills to clients presenting with posttraumatic      stress disorder Recommend therapeutic      approaches for treating clients presenting with posttraumatic stress      disorder Analyze the importance of      using evidence-based psychotherapy treatments for clients with      posttraumatic stress disorder    Learning Resources Required Readings (click to expand/reduce) https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline https://content.waldenu.edu/content/dam/laureate/laureate-academics/wal/ms-nurs/nrnp-6645/week-09/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf https://content.waldenu.edu/content/dam/laureate/laureate-academics/wal/ms-nurs/nrnp-6645/week-09/Tye%20Preclinical%20Perspectives.pdf Wheeler, K. (Ed.). (2020).  Psychotherapy for the advanced practice psychiatric nurse: A how-to guide for evidence-based practice  (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing. Chapter      3, “Assessment and Diagnosis” (Previously read in Week 2) Chapter      7, “Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy” Chapter      11, “Trauma Resiliency Model Therapy” Chapter      15, “Trauma-Informed Medication Management” Chapter      17, “Stabilization for Trauma and Dissociation” Chapter      18, “Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Complex Trauma” Required Media (click to expand/reduce) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkSv_zPH-M4 https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/ptsd-and-veterans-a-conversation-with-dr-frank-ochberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98ilXH5gto    Assignment: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto It is estimated that more almost 7% of the U.S. population will experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in their lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health, 2017). This debilitating disorder often interferes with an individual’s ability to function in daily life. Common symptoms of anxiousness and depression frequently lead to behavioral issues, adolescent substance abuse issues, and even physical ailments. For this Assignment, you examine a PTSD video case study and consider how you might assess and treat clients presenting with PTSD. To prepare: Review this week’s Learning      Resources and reflect on the insights they provide about diagnosing and      treating PTSD. View the media  Presentation      Example: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)  and assess the      client in the case study.  For guidance on assessing      the client, refer to Chapter 3 of the Wheeler text. Note:  To complete this Assignment, you must assess the client, but you are not required to submit a formal comprehensive client assessment. The Assignment Succinctly, in 2 pages, address the following: Briefly explain the      neurobiological basis for PTSD illness. Discuss the  DSM-5-TR  diagnostic      criteria for PTSD and relate these criteria to the symptomology presented      in the case study. Does the video case presentation provide sufficient      information to derive a PTSD diagnosis? Justify your reasoning. Do you      agree with the other diagnoses in the case presentation? Why or why not? Discuss one other      psychotherapy treatment option for the client in this case study. Explain      whether your treatment option is considered a “gold standard treatment”      from a clinical practice guideline perspective, and why using gold      standard, evidence-based treatments from clinical practice guidelines is      important for psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioners. Support your Assignment with specific examples from this week’s media and at least three peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources. Explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly. Attach the PDFs of your sources. Submit your Assignment. Also attach and submit PDFs of the sources you used.

Receive Instant Help

Click Here to Ask Your Question

Purchase A New Answer

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts, get a quote, related questions.

• PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW 1ZERO 0 PLAGIARISM 2AT LEAST 5 REFERENCES NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS WITHIN 5YRS OR LESS THAN 5YRS 3 PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS Developing Smart Goals Clinical skill Self assessment form Clinical skill list ...
• Write a paper reviewing a peerreviewed article about anethical need in the Pediatric setting ...
• CASE STUDY Preschool Child Ricky Ricky age 4 years arrives in the clinic with his mother ...
• Please answer this question in relation to case study with at least two references ...
• Summarize in 34 pages this assignment that provides information fromWeeks 1 to 4 ...
• InstructionsReflect on anyONEof the following issues and post your answer on the discussion forum ...
• Running Head SHORTENED VERSION OF TITLE 1 SHORTENED TITLE IN ALL CAPS 1 Number 1 peer post ldquoIn undergraduate they taught students that it is a scientific practice in nursing that determines how to conduct oneself in clinical setting ...
• n 2019 the state of Illinois enacted SB 25 the Reproductive Health Act RHA which repeals the state39s unconstitutional prohibition on reproductive healthcare ...
• 1What is the difference between energy and power What is a unit of power How does speed relate to power 2Explain how a sound is actually a form of energy In what medium do sound waves travel 3Give an example of change of energy from potential to kinetic from kinetic to potential ...
• Purpose Summarize and appraise an article Diet for hypertension for bias and validity in a collaborative environment ...

• Don't have an account? Register Now
• Forgot Password? Reset Password

Please enter your email address and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password

• Already have an account? Log In