如何利用指南和教学评分标准改进本科生撰写的议论性综合文章

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Isabel Cuevas, Mar Mateos, Lidia Casado-Ledesma, Ricardo Olmos, Miriam Granado-Peinado, María Luna, Juan Antonio Núñez, Elena Martín
{"title":"如何利用指南和教学评分标准改进本科生撰写的议论性综合文章","authors":"Isabel Cuevas, Mar Mateos, Lidia Casado-Ledesma, Ricardo Olmos, Miriam Granado-Peinado, María Luna, Juan Antonio Núñez, Elena Martín","doi":"10.1007/s10212-024-00890-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Undergraduates often struggle writing argumentative syntheses from conflicting sources. Written guides can help in the different phases of the process involved in these tasks and are more effective when accompanied by explicit instruction. Nevertheless, there are few studies on instructional rubrics as an aid to argumentative writing and none are focused on synthesis tasks. Our objectives were to compare (1) the effectiveness of a guide and a rubric as aids to the processes of selection and integration in writing an argumentative synthesis; (2) whether explicit instruction in synthesis writing strategies enhances the effects of both aids and (3) the effectiveness of the aids offered during the practice sessions performed with the support of aids and after removing those aids. The study was conducted with 120 undergraduate psychology students. An experimental inter/intra-subject factorial design 2 (Instruction) x 2 (Type of aid) x 4 (Time) was employed. We used mixed linear models to assess the intervention effects. The guide facilitated the selection of arguments. Both guide and rubric promoted integration. When students also received explicit instruction, the learning rate of integration strategies was accelerated, and the impact of guide and rubric was greater.</p>","PeriodicalId":47800,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics\",\"authors\":\"Isabel Cuevas, Mar Mateos, Lidia Casado-Ledesma, Ricardo Olmos, Miriam Granado-Peinado, María Luna, Juan Antonio Núñez, Elena Martín\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10212-024-00890-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Undergraduates often struggle writing argumentative syntheses from conflicting sources. Written guides can help in the different phases of the process involved in these tasks and are more effective when accompanied by explicit instruction. Nevertheless, there are few studies on instructional rubrics as an aid to argumentative writing and none are focused on synthesis tasks. Our objectives were to compare (1) the effectiveness of a guide and a rubric as aids to the processes of selection and integration in writing an argumentative synthesis; (2) whether explicit instruction in synthesis writing strategies enhances the effects of both aids and (3) the effectiveness of the aids offered during the practice sessions performed with the support of aids and after removing those aids. The study was conducted with 120 undergraduate psychology students. An experimental inter/intra-subject factorial design 2 (Instruction) x 2 (Type of aid) x 4 (Time) was employed. We used mixed linear models to assess the intervention effects. The guide facilitated the selection of arguments. Both guide and rubric promoted integration. When students also received explicit instruction, the learning rate of integration strategies was accelerated, and the impact of guide and rubric was greater.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychology of Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychology of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00890-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology of Education","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00890-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本科生在根据相互矛盾的资料来源撰写综合论证文章时常常会遇到困难。书面指导可以帮助学生完成这些任务所涉及的不同阶段的写作过程,如果辅以明确的指导,效果会更好。然而,很少有研究将指导性评分标准作为议论文写作的辅助工具,也没有研究侧重于综合任务。我们的目标是比较:(1) 指南和评分标准作为论证性综合写作中选择和整合过程的辅助工具的有效性;(2) 关于综合写作策略的明确指导是否会增强这两种辅助工具的效果;(3) 在辅助工具支持下和去除这些辅助工具后,在练习过程中提供的辅助工具的有效性。研究对象为 120 名心理学本科生。我们采用了 2(指导)x 2(辅助工具类型)x 4(时间)的实验性受试者间/受试者内因子设计。我们使用混合线性模型来评估干预效果。指南促进了论据的选择。指南和评分标准都促进了整合。当学生同时接受明确的指导时,整合策略的学习速度加快,指导和评分标准的影响更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics

How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics

Undergraduates often struggle writing argumentative syntheses from conflicting sources. Written guides can help in the different phases of the process involved in these tasks and are more effective when accompanied by explicit instruction. Nevertheless, there are few studies on instructional rubrics as an aid to argumentative writing and none are focused on synthesis tasks. Our objectives were to compare (1) the effectiveness of a guide and a rubric as aids to the processes of selection and integration in writing an argumentative synthesis; (2) whether explicit instruction in synthesis writing strategies enhances the effects of both aids and (3) the effectiveness of the aids offered during the practice sessions performed with the support of aids and after removing those aids. The study was conducted with 120 undergraduate psychology students. An experimental inter/intra-subject factorial design 2 (Instruction) x 2 (Type of aid) x 4 (Time) was employed. We used mixed linear models to assess the intervention effects. The guide facilitated the selection of arguments. Both guide and rubric promoted integration. When students also received explicit instruction, the learning rate of integration strategies was accelerated, and the impact of guide and rubric was greater.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology of Education (EJPE) is a quarterly journal oriented toward publishing high-quality papers that address the relevant psychological aspects of educational processes embedded in different institutional, social, and cultural contexts, and which focus on diversity in terms of the participants, their educational trajectories and their socio-cultural contexts. Authors are strongly encouraged to employ a variety of theoretical and methodological tools developed in the psychology of education in order to gain new insights by integrating different perspectives. Instead of reinforcing the divisions and distances between different communities stemming from their theoretical and methodological backgrounds, we would like to invite authors to engage with diverse theoretical and methodological tools in a meaningful way and to search for the new knowledge that can emerge from a combination of these tools. EJPE is open to all papers reflecting findings from original psychological studies on educational processes, as well as to exceptional theoretical and review papers that integrate current knowledge and chart new avenues for future research. Following the assumption that engaging with diversities creates great opportunities for new knowledge, the editorial team wishes to encourage, in particular, authors from less represented countries and regions, as well as young researchers, to submit their work and to keep going through the review process, which can be challenging, but which also presents opportunities for learning and inspiration.
×
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