Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education

Dialogical argumentation practice contributes positively to argumentative writing skills. Specifically, deliberative dialogues are effective in promoting argument and counterargument integration in students' essays. However, the potential of dialogic activities may be increased if they are comb...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Casado Ledesma, Lidia, Cuevas Fernández, María Isabel, Van den Bergh, Huub, Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Mateos Sanz, M. Mar, Granado Peinado, Miriam, Martín Ortega, Elena
Formato: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2021
País:España
Recursos:Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Repositorio:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/709699
Acesso em linha:http://hdl.handle.net/10486/709699
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:secondary education
argumentation
deliberative discussions
written synthesis
Psicología
id ES_151887e44cd76bffff43896e094b95b1
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/709699
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary educationCasado Ledesma, LidiaCuevas Fernández, María IsabelVan den Bergh, HuubRijlaarsdam, GertMateos Sanz, M. MarGranado Peinado, MiriamMartín Ortega, Elenasecondary educationargumentationdeliberative discussionswritten synthesisPsicologíaDialogical argumentation practice contributes positively to argumentative writing skills. Specifically, deliberative dialogues are effective in promoting argument and counterargument integration in students' essays. However, the potential of dialogic activities may be increased if they are combined with instructional practices. The primary objective of this research is to compare the impact of four intervention programs, aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction through video modelling—EI, or a Procedural Guideline—G), while Deliberative Dialogues—DD—were a constant element. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which 186 Spanish third grade secondary school students (aged 14–15) participated. We evaluated the quality of the syntheses by examining the level of argumentative coverage (the total number of arguments included in the synthesis) and the level of integration (the type and frequency of the argumentative strategies used in the syntheses). The results showed that the effectiveness of the instructional methods varies according to the synthesis quality indicator. Explicit instruction, in combination with deliberative dialogues, was especially helpful in improving the level of integration of syntheses. The procedural guideline, in combination with deliberative dialogues, contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments. The combination of these two elements did not favor the writing of synthesis as expected, probably due to the conditions in which the intervention was carried out. The findings of this study revealed that the coverage of arguments and integration processes are of different nature, follow different learning paths and require different instructional processesThe 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)SpringerDepartamento de Psicología BásicaDepartamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la EducaciónFacultad de Psicología20212021-06-25research articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1AMhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aainfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10486/709699https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3reponame:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAMinstname:Universidad Autónoma de MadridInglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/7096992026-06-23T12:46:27Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
title Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
spellingShingle Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
Casado Ledesma, Lidia
secondary education
argumentation
deliberative discussions
written synthesis
Psicología
title_short Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
title_full Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
title_fullStr Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
title_full_unstemmed Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
title_sort Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Casado Ledesma, Lidia
Cuevas Fernández, María Isabel
Van den Bergh, Huub
Rijlaarsdam, Gert
Mateos Sanz, M. Mar
Granado Peinado, Miriam
Martín Ortega, Elena
author Casado Ledesma, Lidia
author_facet Casado Ledesma, Lidia
Cuevas Fernández, María Isabel
Van den Bergh, Huub
Rijlaarsdam, Gert
Mateos Sanz, M. Mar
Granado Peinado, Miriam
Martín Ortega, Elena
author_role author
author2 Cuevas Fernández, María Isabel
Van den Bergh, Huub
Rijlaarsdam, Gert
Mateos Sanz, M. Mar
Granado Peinado, Miriam
Martín Ortega, Elena
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Departamento de Psicología Básica
Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación
Facultad de Psicología
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv secondary education
argumentation
deliberative discussions
written synthesis
Psicología
topic secondary education
argumentation
deliberative discussions
written synthesis
Psicología
description Dialogical argumentation practice contributes positively to argumentative writing skills. Specifically, deliberative dialogues are effective in promoting argument and counterargument integration in students' essays. However, the potential of dialogic activities may be increased if they are combined with instructional practices. The primary objective of this research is to compare the impact of four intervention programs, aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction through video modelling—EI, or a Procedural Guideline—G), while Deliberative Dialogues—DD—were a constant element. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which 186 Spanish third grade secondary school students (aged 14–15) participated. We evaluated the quality of the syntheses by examining the level of argumentative coverage (the total number of arguments included in the synthesis) and the level of integration (the type and frequency of the argumentative strategies used in the syntheses). The results showed that the effectiveness of the instructional methods varies according to the synthesis quality indicator. Explicit instruction, in combination with deliberative dialogues, was especially helpful in improving the level of integration of syntheses. The procedural guideline, in combination with deliberative dialogues, contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments. The combination of these two elements did not favor the writing of synthesis as expected, probably due to the conditions in which the intervention was carried out. The findings of this study revealed that the coverage of arguments and integration processes are of different nature, follow different learning paths and require different instructional processes
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021
2021-06-25
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv research article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
AM
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10486/709699
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
url http://hdl.handle.net/10486/709699
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
instname:Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
instname_str Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
reponame_str Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
collection Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869403776479133696
score 15,301629

Registos relacionados