Cross-Purposes Across Texts: Toward a Theory of Purposeful Intertextual Integration

• In Event: 45.024 - Integration: A Critical Competency for the Digital Age

Abstract

Objectives
The competency of integrating information from multiple texts is central to learning in 21st century societies (Alexander & DRLRL, 2012; Goldman & Scardamalia, 2013). Intertextual integration involves connecting, combining, or organizing information from different texts. However, beyond this general description, there is little agreement on what exactly this competency involves. Conceptualizations, instructional approaches, and assessments of intertextual integration tend to vary widely, reflecting a lack of consensus on what it takes to successfully integrate multiple texts. Hence, the aim of this paper is to advance greater clarity in the conceptualization of intertextual integration in order to promote its instruction and assessment.

Theoretical Framework and Modes of Inquiry
This work is theoretically informed by traditional and current models of multiple document comprehension (e.g., Spivey & King, 1989; Stadtler & Bromme, 2014), the RESOLV model of purposeful reading (Britt, Rouet, & Durik, 2018), and the AIR model of epistemic cognition (Chinn & Rinehart, 2016). Drawing on these sources, I analyze the conceptualizations underlying the studies identified in a recent review of intertextual integration instruction (Barzilai, Zohar, & Mor-Hagani, in press).

Results
Most theoretical work has addressed intertextual integration as a unitary construct that consists of a fixed set of processes and standards. However, in fact, various strands of research have focused on different purposes of integration (e.g., corroboration, argumentation, or synthesis). These purposes entail substantial differences in epistemic and communicative aims, processes, and standards, resulting in different approaches to instruction and assessment.
To illustrate, I contrast two key purposes—argumentation and synthesis. In the full paper, I will discuss their commonalities and differences at greater length and address corroboration and inquiry as well.
The core epistemic aim of intertextual argumentation is to justify claims using multiple texts. This requires identifying and evaluating the arguments made in the texts, and developing arguments using claims, reasons, or evidence from texts. Accordingly, evaluation standards tend to highlight availability and clarity of claims, quality of justification, consideration of opposing positions, etc., and instruction emphasizes scaffolding argument evaluation and construction (e.g., De La Paz et al., 2014; Mateos et al., 2018).
In contrast, the core epistemic aim of intertextual synthesis is to extend knowledge and understanding by identifying recurring themes in a body of texts. This involves selecting and comparing information to generalize propositions, ideas, or patterns, and producing new texts in which information is connected within these emergent themes. Evaluation standards underscore the generalization of themes, their elaboration, and organization. Instruction emphasizes identification and presentation of themes (e.g., Martínez et al., 2015; Segev-Miller, 2004).

Scholarly Significance
One of the chief reasons that progress in conceptualizing intertextual integration has been stymied is insufficient consideration of the diverse purposes that this competency serves. Because learning in the digital age requires multiple uses of multiple texts, mapping the commonalities and differences between the various purposes for intertextual integration can inform instructional approaches that will help students flexibly integrate texts for diverse purposes. Distinguishing between purposes can also inform assessment efforts by identifying cross-cutting as well as purpose-specific standards.

Author

• Sarit Barzilai, University of Haifa