La influencia de las actividades de argumentación oral en la mejora de la competencia argumentativa y de la adopción de perspectivas: análisis del papel de la demanda

Trabajo fin de Máster en Psicología de la EducaciónEste trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar la influencia de las actividades de argumentación oral en la mejora de la competencia argumentativa y la adopción de perspectivas. Se compararon dos condiciones de argumentación oral. En una de ellas (condición de persuasión) la discusión se planteó como un debate tradicional y los estudiantes tuvieron que defender la postura asignada sobre la controversia. En la otra condición (consenso) la discusión se planteó con una finalidad reflexiva para alcanzar una solución integradora. Además, tuvimos en cuenta el grado de participación en estas actividades de argumentación oral como una variable que podía influir en los resultados- los estudiantes adoptaron el rol de representantes u observadores en una de las sesiones de discusión-. Los participantes fueron 94 estudiantes de dos institutos de educación secundaria. Se adoptó un diseño cuasiexperimental con medidas pre y post, siendo la condición y el grado de participación variables intersujeto. El alumnado de ambas condiciones escribió dos síntesis argumentativas a partir de fuentes con informaciones contrapuestas- una al comienzo del estudio y otra al final-. Asimismo, los estudiantes cumplimentaron un cuestionario de adopción de perspectivas antes y después de las actividades de argumentación oral. Los resultados indicaron que este tipo de actividades son eficaces para mejorar la adopción de perspectivas y la integración de argumentos y contraargumentos en la escritura de síntesis. Sin embargo, según un análisis secundario, solo el alumnado con alto nivel de competencia lingüística se benefició de dichas actividades. No se hallaron diferencias entre ambas condiciones de discusión y no encontramos un impacto diferencial de las actividades en función del grado de participaciónThis study has the aim of analyzing the influence of the oral argumentation activities on the improvement of the argumentative competence and the ability of taking perspectives. Two conditions of oral argumentation were compared. One of them (persuasion condition) was articulated as a traditional debate in which the students had to defend the assigned position of the controversy. In the other condition (consensus) the task of the discussion was to reflect and to reach a conclusion integrating both sides of the controversy. In addition, we took into account the grade of participation in these activities of oral argumentation as a variable that could influence the results: the students acted as observers or as representatives in one of the discussion sessions. The participants were 94 students of secondary education from two different high schools. A quasi-experimental design with pre and post measurement was adopted, being the condition and the grade of participation inter-subject variables. The students of both conditions wrote two argumentative synthesis from texts presenting opposing views- the first one at the beginning of the study and the second one at the end of the study-. Also, the students answered a questionnaire about taking perspectives before and after the activities of oral argumentation. The results showed that these activities are effective to improve perspective taking and to improve the integration of arguments and counterarguments in the written synthesis. However, according to a secondary analysis, only the students with high level of linguistic competence got benefits from these activities. No differences were found according the condition of discussion, and we didn’t find a differential impact of the activities according to the grade of participatio

Learning science through argumentative synthesis writing and deliberative dialogues: a comprehensive and effective methodology in secondary education

Scientific literacy can be promoted through oral and written argumentative practice. Collaborative discourse has proven effective in fostering conceptual understanding, especially when discussions are developed under deliberative goals. Likewise, writing tasks as argumentative syntheses stand out for its epistemic value and its contribution to constructive learning processes. However, there are no known educational interventions that have combined these two didactic activities to teach science. The objective of this research was to compare the impact of four intervention programs, based on deliberative dialogues and argumentative synthesis writing activities, on the learning of socio-scientific content. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction; Guide), while deliberative dialogues and argumentative syntheses were constant elements. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which participated 151 Spanish third grade secondary school students. Socio-scientific learning was evaluated through a content test made up of open questions. The results showed all students progressed in their socio-scientific knowledge. Instructional practices did not have a direct effect on content learning. However, we observed an indirect effect of explicit instruction on learning socio-scientific content, through learning of argumentative synthesis writing. Besides, we found a positive relation between progression in synthesis writing and knowledge acquisitionOpen Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. The present study was supported by the Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (Spain) under Grant for the Formación de Personal Investigador (FPU16/01454), and by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innnovación State program oriented to the challenges of society (I + D + I) (PID2019-105250RB-I00

Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice

In writing argumentative syntheses from multiple and contradictory sources, students must contrast and integrate different perspectives on a topic or issue. This complex task of source-based argumentation has been shown to be effective for learning, but it has also been shown to be quite challenging. Because of the challenges, educational interventions have been developed to facilitate performance through such means as explicit instruction of strategies and students’ engagement in collaborative writing. Whereas these interventions have been beneficial for many writers, some students continue to perform poorly. The present study builds on prior research into collaborative writing of source-based argumentative syntheses by focusing on these students who experience difficulty with this academic task. Undergraduate psychology students who had previously underperformed on the argumentative task were organized into 56 pairs to participate in one of four versions of an intervention program, which differed in terms of the extent of support provided. The most complete program included collaboration as well as explicit instruction in argumentative synthesis writing and in the collaboration process. Statistical analyses were carried out with two ANOVAs with planned comparisons as well as two mediation models. Results showed that the pairs of students who received this most complete program significantly improved the quality of their synthesis in two dimensions, argument identification and argument analysis. The quality of their performance exceeded the performance of students in the three other intervention programs. The combination of explicit instruction and practice in pairs had positive effects on argument identification; but, for argument integration, effectiveness could be attributed solely to the explicit instruction component of the intervention. The study contributes to prior research by showing how the components of an intervention can make differential contributions to its effectiveness for a particular group of studentsThe present study was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación State program oriented to the challenges of society (I + D + i) (PID2019-105250RB-I00

El aprendizaje de la escritura de síntesis argumentativas y de contenidos socio-científicos, a través de los diálogos deliberativos y distintas prácticas instruccionales

Tesis doctoral inédita leída en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Psicología, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Fecha de lectura: 13-10-2021Esta tesis tiene embargado el acceso al texto completo hasta el 13-04-202

Recursivity in source-based writing : a process analysis

In university settings, writing argumentative essays from reading conflicting source texts is a common task for students. In performing this synthesis task, they must deal with conflicting claims about a controversial issue as they develop their own positions. Argumentative synthesis is characterized by writers’ back-and-forth moves between reading source texts and writing their own texts—a self-regulatory process that can be termed recursivity. The present study investigated the recursive behavior of Italian university students as they wrote argumentative syntheses while reading conflicting sources. The 43 graduate students participating in the study read four source texts on a controversial topic, evaluation in academe, with the goal of writing an argumentative essay. Reading of the sources was studied through a think-aloud procedure, and recursivity in writing the syntheses was recorded through Inputlog software. Comparisons were made between 22 high-recursive and 22 low recursive writers for the quality of their argumentative essays and for the critical strategies that they had used in reading the sources. Descriptive and nonparametic analyses produced the following three findings: (1) The strategies most employed in prereading were all related to synthesis-related activities: voicing opinion, expressing agreement, and expressing doubts. (2) Recursivity occurred most often in the middle of the synthesis process, as writers developed their arguments, instead of at the beginning or end. (3) High-recursive writers surpassed low-recursive writers by producing argumentative essays of higher quality and obtained better recall scores. They also employed more critical processing relevant to synthesis when reading the sources. This study provides insight on how recursivity is involved in argumentative writing but still there is need for further research

Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis

Abstract: In university settings, writing argumentative essays from reading conflicting source texts is a common task for students. In performing this synthesis task, they must deal with conflicting claims about a controversial issue as they develop their own positions. Argumentative synthesis is characterized by writers\u2019 back-and-forth moves between reading source texts and writing their own texts\u2014a self-regulatory process that can be termed recursivity. The present study investigated the recursive behavior of Italian university students as they wrote argumentative syntheses while reading conflicting sources. The 43 graduate students participating in the study read four source texts on a controversial topic, evaluation in academe, with the goal of writing an argumentative essay. Reading of the sources was studied through a think-aloud procedure, and recursivity in writing the syntheses was recorded through Inputlog software. Comparisons were made between 22 high-recursive and 22 low recursive writers for the quality of their argumentative essays and for the critical strategies that they had used in reading the sources. Descriptive and nonparametic analyses produced the following three findings: (1) The strategies most employed in prereading were all related to synthesis-related activities: voicing opinion, expressing agreement, and expressing doubts. (2) Recursivity occurred most often in the middle of the synthesis process, as writers developed their arguments, instead of at the beginning or end. (3) High-recursive writers surpassed low-recursive writers by producing argumentative essays of higher quality and obtained better recall scores. They also employed more critical processing relevant to synthesis when reading the sources. This study provides insight on how recursivity is involved in argumentative writing but still there is need for further research