Historical contextualization in students’ writing

IF 3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kristin A. Sendur, J. van Drie, Carla A. M. van Boxtel
{"title":"Historical contextualization in students’ writing","authors":"Kristin A. Sendur, J. van Drie, Carla A. M. van Boxtel","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2021.1939029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: This study focused on undergraduate L2 students’ performance in written historical reasoning, particularly written historical contextualization, before and after participating in a historical reasoning course. The Content and Language Integrated Learning course was designed using a cognitive apprenticeship model and was based on principles likely to facilitate students’ written historical reasoning. Methods: Conducted as a quasi-experimental study, students in an experimental condition received explicit instruction in historical contextualization and other features of historical reasoning, while those in the control group participated in a version of the course without a focus on historical contextualization. Students’ historical reasoning was measured based on their argumentative document-based writing. Findings: Students’ in both the experimental and control groups significantly improved in all of the areas of historical reasoning that we measured. There was not a significant difference between the groups in the area of historical contextualization, but a further qualitative analysis demonstrated traces of the instructional approach in students’ writing. Unexpectedly, students in the experimental group were significantly better than the control group in terms of writing claims. Possible explanations for this finding are discussed. Contributions: This study makes contributions in terms of operationalizing and measuring written historical contextualization, particularly among L2 undergraduate students.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"29 1","pages":"797 - 836"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1939029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: This study focused on undergraduate L2 students’ performance in written historical reasoning, particularly written historical contextualization, before and after participating in a historical reasoning course. The Content and Language Integrated Learning course was designed using a cognitive apprenticeship model and was based on principles likely to facilitate students’ written historical reasoning. Methods: Conducted as a quasi-experimental study, students in an experimental condition received explicit instruction in historical contextualization and other features of historical reasoning, while those in the control group participated in a version of the course without a focus on historical contextualization. Students’ historical reasoning was measured based on their argumentative document-based writing. Findings: Students’ in both the experimental and control groups significantly improved in all of the areas of historical reasoning that we measured. There was not a significant difference between the groups in the area of historical contextualization, but a further qualitative analysis demonstrated traces of the instructional approach in students’ writing. Unexpectedly, students in the experimental group were significantly better than the control group in terms of writing claims. Possible explanations for this finding are discussed. Contributions: This study makes contributions in terms of operationalizing and measuring written historical contextualization, particularly among L2 undergraduate students.
学生写作中的历史语境化
摘要背景:本研究主要关注本科二语学生在参加历史推理课程前后的书面历史推理,特别是书面历史语境化的表现。内容和语言综合学习课程的设计采用了认知学徒模式,并基于可能促进学生书面历史推理的原则。方法:作为一项准实验研究,实验条件下的学生接受了关于历史语境化和其他历史推理特征的明确指导,而对照组的学生则参加了不关注历史语境化的课程。学生的历史推理能力是根据他们的议论文写作来衡量的。结果:实验组和对照组的学生在我们测量的所有历史推理领域都有显著提高。两组学生在历史语境化方面没有显著差异,但进一步的定性分析显示了教学方法在学生写作中的痕迹。出乎意料的是,实验组的学生在写作要求方面明显优于对照组。对这一发现的可能解释进行了讨论。贡献:本研究在操作化和测量书面历史语境化方面做出了贡献,特别是在第二语言本科生中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信