Separating the relevant from the irrelevant: Factors influencing L1 student teachers’ ability to discern (ir)relevant arguments in time-pressured grammatical discussions

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Banga, J. V. van Rijt
{"title":"Separating the relevant from the irrelevant: Factors influencing L1 student teachers’ ability to discern (ir)relevant arguments in time-pressured grammatical discussions","authors":"A. Banga, J. V. van Rijt","doi":"10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.1.506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Identifying relevant information and evaluating evidence are considered characteristics of critical thinking. These skills are important for language teachers, for example in evaluating pupils’ grammatical reasoning in the context of grammar education. Therefore, the current study has examined whether Dutch language student teachers (N=298) in different educational tracks (Bachelor full-time, Bachelor part-time and Master) are able to distinguish relevant arguments from irrelevant (or incorrect) ones in two grammatical discussions. Results indicate that student teachers are better at evaluating relevant arguments in grammatical discussions than they are at evaluating irrelevant arguments. Multilevel analyses show that the factors partly explaining the Relevant Argument score are students’ education and their Need for Cognition. The factors that partly explain the Irrelevant Argument score on the other hand are the perceived difficulty of the task, and strikingly, age. The paper discusses explanations for these findings, as well as practical implications for teacher education.","PeriodicalId":43406,"journal":{"name":"L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.1.506","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identifying relevant information and evaluating evidence are considered characteristics of critical thinking. These skills are important for language teachers, for example in evaluating pupils’ grammatical reasoning in the context of grammar education. Therefore, the current study has examined whether Dutch language student teachers (N=298) in different educational tracks (Bachelor full-time, Bachelor part-time and Master) are able to distinguish relevant arguments from irrelevant (or incorrect) ones in two grammatical discussions. Results indicate that student teachers are better at evaluating relevant arguments in grammatical discussions than they are at evaluating irrelevant arguments. Multilevel analyses show that the factors partly explaining the Relevant Argument score are students’ education and their Need for Cognition. The factors that partly explain the Irrelevant Argument score on the other hand are the perceived difficulty of the task, and strikingly, age. The paper discusses explanations for these findings, as well as practical implications for teacher education.
分离相关与不相关:影响L1学生教师在时间紧迫的语法讨论中辨别(ir)相关论点能力的因素
识别相关信息和评估证据被认为是批判性思维的特征。这些技能对语言教师很重要,例如在语法教育的背景下评估学生的语法推理。因此,本研究考察了不同教育轨道(全日制学士、兼职学士和硕士)的荷兰语学生教师(N=298)是否能够在两个语法讨论中区分相关论点和不相关(或不正确)的论点。结果表明,实习教师在语法讨论中对相关论点的评价优于对无关论点的评价。多层次分析表明,学生的教育程度和认知需求是影响相关论点得分的主要因素。另一方面,部分解释不相关论点得分的因素是任务的感知难度,以及引人注目的年龄。本文讨论了对这些发现的解释,以及对教师教育的现实意义。
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
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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