Writing an argumentation about a controversial issue from contradictory sources is a challenging task. It involves understanding, managing, and generating arguments and counterarguments from different sources to support a final position, conveyed in a formal structure. Despite its difficulty, argumentative writing is not often taught in higher education in Spain. Furthermore, online interventions regarding this type of task are scarce. For this reason, we designed and evaluated virtual training aimed at writing integrative and well-structured arguments in a distance learning university. Sixty-eight undergraduates participated in this pre-post with a control group design. The training included explicit instruction through video lectures and practice exercises with immediate feedback using open online resources (e.g., Moodle). The results show that after the instruction the participants' written products improved both in their structure, the number of arguments for the against-position, and the degree of integration of the two perspectives. However, those products that presented medium or maximum integration were still limited. These results illustrate how online instruction of argumentative writing can be implemented in higher education with positive results. However, students still need more support to expand their skills for generating integrative synthesis. Considering these results, we propose further improvements in the designed training.

In this study, university students are faced with the task of collaboratively writing an argumentative synthesis from multiple sources. Specifically, in writing, they must integrate conflicting information on a particular issue obtained from reading two texts that present different perspectives. As research in this field has shown, university students’ transactional beliefs about writing have a bearing on the quality of the texts that they write. In addition, studies on collaborative learning have demonstrated the role of constructive strategies in addressing controversy. Constructive strategies require an epistemic approach, which implies understanding and integrating opposing positions and rationales. Therefore, the specific aims of the study are to analyze the relationships between the following: (a) writing beliefs and the joint written synthesis, b) writing beliefs and the strategies used to address the controversies that emerge during collaborative writing, and (c) how students resolve controversies and the quality of their joint syntheses. The participants were 52 fourth-year psychology students at a state-run university in Madrid. The results show that transactional writing beliefs are associated with both the controversy strategies employed by members of student dyads and the quality of the joint syntheses. Furthermore, the strategies for addressing controversy are associated with the quality of the joint syntheses.