Kaikki aineistot
Lisää
The aim of this study was to investigate the nature of collaborative argumentation by students enrolled in a degree program in social services. Students (n = 29) in a University of Applied Sciences participated in role-play discussions and problem solving on adolescents’ substance abuse. The discussions were conducted either online (15 students) or face-to-face (14 students). The data comprise the students’ asynchronous online and face-to-face discussions, which were analysed by identifying discussion fragments relevant in collaborative argumentation, and by comparing the results of the two groups. The results showed that the face-to-face discussions were more collaborative than the online discussions. Collaboration during the face-to-face interaction was particularly evident in the higher number of explanations and acceptances. The online discussions, in turn, exhibited a higher quality of argumentation than the face-to-face discussions. However, the level of students’ justifications in both discussion types was rather low. In conclusion, these results emphasise the importance of developing methods of learning collaborative argumentation in social work education for students’ multifaceted understanding of issues encountered in the field.
This study clarifies whether a specific type of role play supports upper secondary school students’ collaborative argumentation. Data consist of 12 dyadic face-to-face and 12 chat debates. Data analysis focused on the quality of students’ argumentation. Comparisons were made between students who defended standpoints at variance with their personal opinions on the topics, between the two study modes and topics, and by gender. When the students defended a standpoint differing from their personal opinion, the male students engaged in counterargumentation more often than the female students. When, in turn, the students defended their personal standpoint, they produced both counterargumentative and non-argumentative speech turns equally often, and their arguments were more poorly elaborated than when they defended an assigned standpoint. The study suggests that role play in which both counterargumentation and students’ personal standpoints on an issue are taken into account is a viable means to support students’ high quality argumentation.
Argumentative writing from sources is a literacy practice that students commonly find challenging. The present article reports a descriptive study where students’ source-based writing in small groups was supported with either print-based or digital scaffolding. Students analyzed source texts given to them and used their analysis to compose a position paper on a controversial educational topic. Position papers were analyzed for depth and breadth of argumentation, stand and justifications, degree of transformation of source texts’ argumentation, and structure. The study suggests that students in both scaffolding groups were fairly capable of identifying relevant reasons representing various perspectives on the topic in source texts and using them to build an argument in their position papers. However, students seldom transformed the arguments by adding their own thoughts or connecting arguments across the texts. Further, quite a few students seem to struggle in structuring their essays: 41% of essays in the print-based scaffolding group and 24% of essays in the digital scaffolding group were unstructured. Instructional implications are discussed.
The Internet is a significant information resource for students due to the ease of access it allows to a vast amount of information. As the quality of the information on the Internet varies, it is important that students are able to evaluate such information critically. The aim of the study was to investigate how students evaluate Internet sources in an authentic learning task. Upper secondary school students (n = 25) were asked to look for source material on the Internet in order to write an essay. They were asked to verbalize their thoughts during the material gathering process. Their verbalizations and actions on the Internet were recorded and analyzed. The five evaluation profiles emerged: 1) versatile evaluators; 2) relevance-orientated evaluators; 3) limited evaluators; 4) disorientated readers; and 5) uncritical readers.
Artikkelissa kuvataan opetuskokeilua, jossa tieteellisten tekstien lukemista, teksteistä keskustelemista ja lähteiden pohjalta kirjoittamista tuettiin Pohtimiskaavio-verkkotyökalulla. Opiskelijat kertoivat, että Pohtimiskaavio auttoi analysoimaan lähteitä ja jäsentämään niiden pohjalta käytyä keskustelua. Kun asiat tuli merkittyä systemaattisesti muistiin näkökulmittain, myös kirjoittaminen oli helpompaa. Vaikka opiskelijoiden kokemukset Pohtimiskaavion käytöstä olivat pääosin myönteisiä, työkalun teknisiin ominaisuuksiin toivottiin parannuksia.
This paper reports on a teaching experiment in which social work students (n=38) practiced problem solving through argumentative tasks. A teaching experiment was carried out at a Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences in Finland in connection with a course concerning preventative work against alcohol- and drug abuse. This quasiexperimental study investigated whether role-play simulation conducted either online (15 students) or face-to-face (14 students) improved students’ problem solving on social issues. As a pre-test, the students wrote an essay after having watched a dramatization of problematic cases on elderly people’s use of alcohol. The students also attended lectures (30 x 45 min) on the effect of substance abuse and preventive work, and after the role-play simulation they wrote another essay (post-test). Nine controls wrote an essay without participating in the role-play simulation. Lastly, the students filled out feedback questionnaires.The students in the face-to-face group paid more attention to clients’ close persons’ viewpoints in their second- than in their first essays. In the online group, the students more often justified their behavioral solutions (what to do in the situation) with ethical principles in their second essays than in their first ones. The students in both groups found the role-play simulation to support their team work and communication skills. Role-play simulations as a part of long lasting development processes of argumentative problem solving seem to be beneficial for social work students’ professional development.
Collaborative writing combines social processes of writing with cognitive knowledge construction processes, and thus may lead to deeper learning than individual working. This study examined students’ knowledge construction during face-to-face collaborative writing. University students (n = 21) prepared themselves for the collaborative task by reading about developmental theories in a course book and writing individual summaries of them. In small groups, the students discussed each others’ summaries and wrote a joint essay on one of the theories. The data comprise the students’ individual summaries (n = 21), the students’ discussions during the essay writing (8177 speech turns), and the students’ joint essays (n = 6). The utterances from the students’ discussions indicating knowledge construction (n = 3865) were broadly categorized under the headings of collaborative interaction (Asking questions, Answers to questions, Collaborative completion, Expressing disagreement or conflict, Quick agreement, Quick disagreement and Discussing edits) and content processing (Conceptualizing ideas; Clarifying ideas and Expressing an idea or a thought). When constructing knowledge during collaborative writing, the students mainly completed each others’ ideas and asked questions. They rarely expressed disagreement or conflict. A2 collaborative writing task that combines reading, summary writing and group discussion seems to assist students in their construction of knowledge.
This study investigated upper secondary school students’ skills in evaluating the credibility and argumentative content of a blog text and a YouTube video. Both sources concerned child vaccination, the blog text opposing and the YouTube video supporting it. Students rated each source as credible, fairly credible or non-credible, justified their ratings, and analyzed the argumentation of both sources. Their justifications were analyzed for trustworthiness and expertise and their argument analyses for identification of the main position of the source and the reasons supporting it. Students’ justification skills proved fairly weak, and they also struggled with recognizing unbalanced argumentation. Students’ skill in analyzing the argumentation used in the sources also proved inadequate, especially in the blog text task. Overall academic achievement significantly predicted students’ credibility evaluation and argument analysis skills. The results suggest that greater emphasis should be placed on tasks involving the interpretation and analysis of online information.
This study investigated how university students (n = 28) coordinated their collaborative online writing and what kinds of coordination profiles were found among the students. Further, the study examined the quality of the essays produced by groups of students varying in their combinations of coordination profiles. Students’ written comments on their writing processes (n = 583) were divided into episodes focusing on coordination. Eight different categories of collaborative activities during online collaboration were found. The students’ joint essays (n = 9) were evaluated as high, moderate and low according to the number of topics, key concepts, and integration of Internet sources in the essays. Coordination profiles were identified by K-means cluster analysis. The students mainly coordinated their collaborative writing through text-related activities, task-related activities as well as social activities. Four distinct coordination profiles were found, showing that the students coordinated their collaborative writing process in different ways. Technical problems seemed to have a negative effect on essay quality.
Joint construction of new knowledge demands that persons can express their statements in a convincing way and explore other people's arguments constructively. For this reason, more knowledge on different means to support collaborative argumentation is needed. This study clarifies whether structured interaction supports students' critical and elaborative argumentation. The study compares the quality of secondary school students' argumentation during structured and unstructured chat interaction. The data consist of 16 dyadic chat discussions: 8 discussions concerned vivisection and 8 gender equality. Half of the discussions were carried out through structured chat, and the other half through unstructured chat. The results suggest that a structured chat environment evokes counterargumentation, also in topics that do not spontaneously provoke conflicting viewpoints. Further, structured chat seems to equalize communication between females and males. Overall, the results indicate that the further investigation and design of pedagogical means to structure collaborative argumentation is a worthwhile enterprise.
This study investigates whether combining chat discussion and construction of an argument diagram stimulates students to formulate new ideas in practising argumentation. In this study, 16 secondary school students discussed vivisection and gender equality in pairs using both free and structured chat tools. In structured chat, the students selected and completed partial sentences provided by the computer. After the discussion, they jointly constructed either argument diagrams freely based on the previous discussions with an Internet tool or modified a diagram the computer had constructed automatically during the structured chat. The freely constructed diagrams contained more of the students' prior knowledge than the modified diagrams. However, the different types of diagrams did not differ significantly in breadth, depth, or balance of argumentation. Thus, free construction of argument diagrams seems to activate students to incorporate their prior knowledge into those diagrams.
This study investigates the quality of the critical thinking skills of applicants (n = 77) seeking entry to the faculty of educational sciences in a Finnish university and how these skills are associated with the applicant’s age, previous higher education experience, and matriculation and entrance examination scores. The data consist of the applicants’ responses to problem-solving tasks and their matriculation and entrance examination scores. Critical thinking skills were measured with comparison and argumentation tasks. The results indicate that comparison of the texts and analysis of the arguments they contained were more difficult tasks than putting forward arguments both for and against of one’s personal standpoint. In addition, previous experience of higher education predicted participants’ comparison skills and their matriculation examination grades predicted their argumentation skills. The feasibility of using critical comparison tasks in the entrance examination tests is discussed.
Providing teaching-learning environments that foster university studentsö learning is an essential task of higher education. Valid and reliable tools for assessing them are therefore needed. This study investigates the measurement properties of a modified version of the Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ). Two independent data-sets (N = 1637 and N = 1711) were collected from Finnish university students. Confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a modified measurement model for the ETLQ, consisting of 11 factors. The first three factors assessing the teaching-learning environment – Teaching for Understanding, Disciplinary Understanding and Supportive Teaching – were indicators of a second-order factor labeled Encouraging Learning. The remaining three environment factors were Alignment, Peer Support and Constructive Feedback. Three factors – Deep Approach, Surface Approach and Organized studying – assessed studentsö approaches to learning. Furthermore, items related to Critical Thinking were added to questionnaire. The measurement properties of the modified ETLQ and the practical implications are discussed.
The study examined student groups’ (n = 72) self-evaluations of their group work and their learning of critical online reading during an inquiry task. The analyses focused on aspects of critical online reading, describing group work practices, and evaluating them. For learning critical online reading, the most often mentioned aspects were sources, perspectives, and author; corroboration and evidence were mentioned the least. About half of the groups mentioned 0–2 aspects which implies low diversity in learning critical online reading. The most often mentioned aspect in describing group work was division of work. In evaluating group work, member contributions were reflected most often. A majority of the groups mentioned four or five aspects of group work practices or evaluations which implies a moderate ability to reflect on group work. The results suggest that the students’ learning of critical online reading and reflecting on group work jointly were not very extensive.
Previous evaluation studies have rarely used authentic online texts and investigated upper secondary school students' use of evaluation criteria and deep reasoning. The associations between internet-specific epistemic justifications for knowing and credibility evaluation of online texts are not yet fully understood among adolescents. This study investigated upper secondary school students' (N = 372) abilities to evaluate self-selected authentic online texts and the role of internet-specific epistemic justifications in students' evaluation performance when solving a health-related information problem. Students selected three texts with Google Custom Search Engine and evaluated their credibility. Students' evaluation performance across the three texts was determined according to the different aspects evaluated (author, venue, intentions, evidence and corroboration) and the depth of their evaluations. Students also filled in the Internet-Specific Epistemic Justifications (ISEJ) inventory previously validated with pre-service teachers. The results revealed considerable differences in students' abilities to evaluate online texts. Students' beliefs in justification by authority and justification by multiple sources positively predicted their evaluation performance similarly in both topics. The findings suggest that the ISEJ inventory is also valid for upper secondary school students. Students should be explicitly taught to evaluate different credibility aspects and scaffolded to deeply engage with online information.
The present study investigated students’ (N = 404) interpretations of the main message and use of modes in a persuasive multimodal video on vaccines. It also examined whether students’ topic knowledge, language arts grades, and self-identified gender were associated with their interpretations. Students analyzed a YouTube video in which two entertainers demonstrated the importance of vaccinating children. Students’ interpretations of the usefulness of vaccines varied in terms of quality of reasoning, which was associated with students’ topic knowledge. Notably, many students’ interpretations of the use of modes were incomplete, or they did not even mention certain modes in their response. The results suggest that students should be explicitly taught how to interpret different modes and their uses for argumentative purposes.
This study examines how students in Finland (16-18 years of age) constructed meaning and knowledge in a collaborative online reading situation. Student pairs (n = 19) were asked to write a joint essay on a controversial issue. First, the pairs discussed the topic freely to activate their prior knowledge. Next, they gathered source material on the Internet. Finally, they composed a joint essay. The data were collected using an interaction approach to verbal protocol data, along with video screen captures. In the analysis, three units were employed: episodes (n = 562) for describing online reading practices; utterances (n = 944) for identifying collaborative reading strategies; and collaborative reading patterns (n = 435) for clarifying how the student pairs constructed meaning and knowledge. Collaborative reading patterns were categorized according to a four-part model. A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify students’ collaborative reading profiles. Five collaborative reading profiles emerged: co-constructers (two pairs), collaborators (two pairs), blenders (six pairs), individually oriented readers (four pairs), and silent readers (five pairs). Overall, it appeared that some students were capable of working in pairs, whereas others had a stronger preference for working alone. Collaborative profiles might offer teachers both an evaluative and an instructional tool to support collaborative interaction in their classrooms.
The present study investigated students’ (N = 404) interpretations of the main message and use of modes in a persuasive multimodal video on vaccines. It also examined whether students’ topic knowledge, language arts grades, and self-identified gender were associated with their interpretations. Students analyzed a YouTube video in which two entertainers demonstrated the importance of vaccinating children. Students’ interpretations of the usefulness of vaccines varied in terms of quality of reasoning, which was associated with students’ topic knowledge. Notably, many students’ interpretations of the use of modes were incomplete, or they did not even mention certain modes in their response. The results suggest that students should be explicitly taught how to interpret different modes and their uses for argumentative purposes.