Learning paths in synthesis writing: which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome?

This paper presents a secondary analysis of data collected during an intervention study in which students learnt to synthesise pairs of texts presenting opposite views on controversial issues. The original intervention study included two treatments and examined the effects of two instruction conditions when instructional materials and tasks were held constant. The participants were 114 undergraduate psychology students. The object of the instruction was a guide on strategies for writing an argumentative synthesis text. However, the instruction varied between explicit strategy instruction, consisting of explaining each of the process’s four phases (exploring and identifying arguments and counterarguments, contrasting positions, drawing an integrative conclusion, and organising and revising the final draft), modelled via videos, versus self-study of the written strategy guide. After the initial instruction session, the students in both groups practiced collaboratively writing synthesis texts over two sessions with access to the strategy guide. The primary study compared the individually written pre- and posttest syntheses and found statistically significant differences favouring explicit instruction in both dependent variables: the argumentation coverage and the level of integration. The secondary analysis reported in the current paper involved scoring additional written syntheses produced during two practice sessions and then analysing the data for all time points (pretest, posttest, and the two practice sessions) using structural equation modelling (SEM) to test whether explicit instruction directly or indirectly affected the two indicators of good argumentative synthesis texts—argument coverage and integration—via the following collaborative practice. The results suggested two different learning paths for both dependent variables: explicit instruction is effective for both variables, while collaborative practice only has an additional indirect effect on argument coverageThis research project was funded under the National Program for Basic Research Projects 2014–2016 by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (EDU2013-46606-C2-1) and Mobility Stays Salvador Madariaga 2015 by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (PRX15/00042

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

Many urgent problems that societies currently face—from climate change to a global pandemic—require citizens to engage with scientific information as members of democratic societies as well as to solve problems in their personal lives. Most often, to solve their epistemic aims (aims directed at achieving knowledge and understanding) regarding such socio-scientific issues, individuals search for information online, where there exists a multitude of possibly relevant and highly interconnected sources of different perspectives, sometimes providing conflicting information. The paper provides a review of the literature aimed at identifying (a) constraints and affordances that scientific knowledge and the online information environment entail and (b) individuals\u27 cognitive and motivational processes that have been found to hinder, or conversely, support practices of engagement (such as critical information evaluation or two-sided dialogue). Doing this, a conceptual framework for understanding and fostering what we call online engagement with scientific information is introduced, which is conceived as consisting of individual engagement (engaging on one\u27s own in the search, selection, evaluation, and integration of information) and dialogic engagement (engaging in discourse with others to interpret, articulate and critically examine scientific information). In turn, this paper identifies individual and contextual conditions for individuals\u27 goal-directed and effortful online engagement with scientific information

Emotional Tension as a Frame for Argumentation and Decision-Making: Vegetarian vs. Omnivorous Diets

Argumentative discourse has a complexity that is not entirely captured by purely structural analyses. In arguments about socio-scientific issues (SSI), a range of dimensions, besides scientific knowledge, including values, ethical concerns, cultural habits, or emotions, are mobilized. The relationship between argumentation and emotions is now drawing attention of researchers. Our focus is on the dynamic interactions among emotions and scientific evidence. We draw from Plantin, who proposed that emotions are mobilized as argumentative resources alongside knowledge. The goal of our study is to examine in which ways emotional tension frames the construction of arguments about vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets (ODs) with a group of four preservice teachers. The results suggest that the interactions between the group emotional tension and the evaluation of evidence drive a change toward a decision that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants. Participants attended to the epistemic dimension, weighing evidence, and values about the choices, but the emotional framing took priority. We suggest that the analysis of this emotive framing may be a fruitful approach for sophisticated studies of argumentation beyond structural issuesThis work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Universities and is partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Contract grant PGC2018-096581-B-C22S

ELABORATIVE AND CRITICAL DIALOG: TWO POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING AND LEARNING INTERACTIONS

Recent research on learning individual monologs and collaborative problem solving suggests that students learn best when they are required to be active participants in interactive dialogs. However, some interactive dialogs are more conducive to learning than others. Two dialog patterns that seem to be effective in producing successful problem solving and deep learning are elaborative and critical interactions. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the relative impact of each dialog on learning and problem solving by experimentally manipulating the types of conversations in which dyads engage.Undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: a singleton control, a dyadic control, an elaborative dyad, or a critical dyad. The domain chosen for the experiment was a bridge optimization task in which individuals or dyads modified a simulated bridge, with the goal of making it as inexpensive as possible.Both problem solving and learning from the simulation were assessed. Performance on the task included a combination of two factors: the quality of the design and the price. Overall learning was measured by the gain from pre- to posttest on isomorphic evaluations, and was further decomposed into text-explicit and inferential knowledge. The results suggest elaboration is easier to train and led to stronger problem solving and learning than the control condition, whereas the critical interactions were more difficult to instruct and led to problem solving and learning equal to the control condition

The CREATE Approach to Primary Literature Shifts Undergraduates' Self-Assessed Ability to Read and Analyze Journal Articles, Attitudes about Science, and Epistemological Beliefs

The C. R. E. A. T. E. (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret data, Think of the next Experiment) method uses intensive analysis of primary literature in the undergraduate classroom to demystify and humanize science. We have reported previously that the method improves students' critical thinking and content integration abilities, while at the same time enhancing their self-reported understanding of "who does science, and why." We report here the results of an assessment that addressed C. R. E. A. T. E. students' attitudes about the nature of science, beliefs about learning, and confidence in their ability to read, analyze, and explain research articles. Using a Likert-style survey administered pre- and postcourse, we found significant changes in students' confidence in their ability to read and analyze primary literature, self-assessed understanding of the nature of science, and epistemological beliefs (e. g., their sense of whether knowledge is certain and scientific talent innate). Thus, within a single semester, the inexpensive C. R. E. A. T. E. method can shift not just students' analytical abilities and understanding of scientists as people, but can also positively affect students' confidence with analysis of primary literature, their insight into the processes of science, and their beliefs about learning.NSFNSF CCLI/TUES 0311117, 0618536, 1021443Molecular Bioscience

The evolution of research on collaborative learning

For many years, theories of collaborative learning tended to focus on how individuals function in a group. More recently, the focus has shifted so that the group itself has become the unit of analysis. In terms of empirical research, the initial goal was to establish whether and under what circumstances collaborative learning was more effective than learning alone. Researchers controlled several independent variables (size of the group, composition of the group, nature of the task, communication media, and so on). However, these variables interacted with one another in a way that made it almost impossible to establish causal links between the conditions and the effects of collaboration. Hence, empirical studies have more recently started to focus less on establishing parameters for effective collaboration and more on trying to understand the role which such variables play in mediating interaction. In this chapter, we argue that this shift to a more process-oriented account requires new tools for analysing and modelling interactions