The impact of a scientific argumentation electronic rubric on the blended learning methodology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.1.18827Keywords:
argumentation, self-evaluation, educational innovation, preservice teachers, scoring rubric, higher educationAbstract
The technological innovations and their impact on education is a curricular content in the initial training of the degrees in Education. The rapid changes in technological development make the contents of this training obsolete, thus we need to train in scientific and technological arguments to deal with innovations that do not yet exist. This involves developing digital skills and a scientific and technological argumentation with new methodologies and technologies that help to enhance these competencies. The present study aims to measure the impact produced by a methodology and e-rubric of argumentation -extracted from the Toulmin model- together with the self-evaluation of the processes of argumentation and the qualifications of 30 students of the Pedagogy degree with b-learning. With this aim, a mixed research is proposed: On the one hand, a qualitative analysis of 262 annotations given by the students to two exercises of argumentation (one with and another without the e-rubric) on two similar cases of technological innovation; and on the other hand, a quantitative and correlational analysis of the self-assessment by students and its correlation with the teacher assessments using the Wilcoxon statistic. The outcomes allowed to verify the positive impact of the argumentation e-rubric, and how this correlates (Z = -2.440, Z = -3.276 and Z = -2.783) with the best grades, allowing for more elaborate argumentations.Downloads
References
Bartolomé, A.R. (2004). Blended-learning. Conceptos básicos. Píxel-Bit. Revista De Medios y Educación, (23), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit
Buendía Eisman, L., Colás Bravo, P., & Hernández Pina, F. (1998). Métodos de investigación en psicopedagogía. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
Bulgren, J. A., Ellis, J. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 82-97.
Calle, M., Soto, J. D., Torres, L., Garcia, L., et al., (2016). Improving argumentative skills for engineering students in two different Colombian regions. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, 3, 138-141. Bucharest: Carol I National Defence University. doi:10.12753/2066-026X-16-197
Cebrián-Robles, D., Blanco-López, A., & Noguera Valdemar, J. (2016). El uso de anotaciones sobre vídeos en abierto como herramienta para analizar las concepciones de los estudiantes de pedagogía sobre un problema ambiental. Indagatio Didactica, 8(1), 158-174.https://goo.gl/bGDMMH
Cebrián-Robles, D.; Serrano Angulo, J., & Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M., (2014). Federated e-rubric service to facilitate self-regulated learning in the European university model. European Educational Research Journal. (13) 5, 575-583.https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.5.575
Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M. & Bergman, M. (2014). Evaluación formativa con e-rúbrica: aproximación al estado del arte. REDU. Revista de docencia universitaria. V 12 (1) 15-22. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2014.6427
Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M.; Serrano-Angulo, J., & Ruiz-Torres, M. (2014). Las e-Rúbricas en la evaluación cooperativa del aprendizaje en la Universidad. Comunicar, 43.153-161.https://doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-15.
Chowning, J. T., Griswold, J. C., Kovarik, D. N., & Collins, L. J. (2012). Fostering critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills through bioethics education. PloS one, 7(5), e36791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 90-100. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
Gallego-Arrufat, M.J., & Raposo-Rivas, M. (2014). Compromiso del estudiante y percepción del proceso evaluador basado en rúbricas. REDU. Revista De Docencia Universitaria, 12(1), 197-215.
García-Aretio, L. (2012). Blended, ¿mezcla o integración?(12,7). Blog Contextos universitarios mediados. Recuperado de http://aretio.hypotheses.org/135.
García Aretio, L. (2009). ¿Por qué va ganando la educación a distancia? Madrid: UNED.
Hafner, J., & Hafner, P. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer‐group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (12), 1509-1528.https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038268
Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C. y Baptista-Lucio, P. (2006). Metodología de la Investigación. Ciudad: Editorial McGraw-Hill. 4º Edición.
Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Pérez-Pueyo, Á., & López-Pastor, V. (2015).Implicación y regulación del trabajo del alumnado en los sistemas de evaluación formativa en educación superior. Relieve, 21(1) doi:10.7203/relieve.21.1.5171
Ibáñez-Cubillas, P., Gallego-Arrufat, M.J., & Gámiz-Sánchez, V.M. (2016). The experience of flipped classroom in higher education. A case study in the University of Granada. EDULEARN16 Proceedings. 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp.2816-2824). Barcelona.
Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
Jung, J. (2015). A Study on the Effects of the Rubric on Concurrent Discussion in Web-Based Environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age, CELDA2015. IADIS. Greater Dublin: Ireland.
Kathpalia, S. S., & See, E. K. (2016). Improving argumentation through student blogs. System, 58, 25-36. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.03.002
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7
Lawson, T., Çakmak, M., Gündüz, M., &Busher, H. (2015). Research on teaching practicum – a systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 392-407. doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.994060
Lysaght, Z. (2015). Assessment for learning and for self-regulation. International Journal of Emotional Education, 7(1), 20-34.http://search.proquest.com/docview/1680253200
Martínez-Figueira, E., Tellado-González, F., & Raposo-Rivas, M. (2013).
La rúbrica como instrumento para la autoevaluación: Un estudio piloto.
REDU. Revista De Docencia Universitaria, 11(2), 373-390.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., &Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
Özçinar, H. (2015). Scaffolding computer-mediated discussion to enhance moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Journal of Moral Education, 44(2), 232-251.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1043875
Pérez-Torregrosa, A.B., Gallego-Arrufat, M.J., & Gámiz-Sánchez, V.M (2016). Self Assessment with Electronic Rubrics of Undergraduates in the Practicum in Spain and Greece. Paper presented at the ECER 2016, Leading Education: The Distinct Contributions of Educational Research and Researchers. European Educational Research Association, EERA.
Pértega Díaz, S., & Pita Fernández, S. (2006). Métodos no paramétricos para la comparación de dos muestras. Cad Aten Primaria, 13, 109-113.
Prieto, A., Díaz, D., & Santiago, R. (2014). Metodologías Inductivas: El desafío de enseñar mediante el cuestionamiento y los retos. Barcelona: Océano.
Quinlan, A. (2006). A complete guide to rubrics: Assessmen tmade easy for teachers, K-college. EEUU: Rowman &Little field Education.
Raposo-Rivas, M., Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M., & Martínez-Figueira, S. (2013). The electronic rubric to value skills on ICT subjects. European Educational Research Journal. 5(13), 584-594, https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.5.584
Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448. doi:10.1080/02602930902862859
Rojas, V. M. N. (2011). Metodología de la Investigación. Bogotá: Ediciones de la U
Sánchez, A.B. (2004). Un modelo para blended-learning aplicado a la formación en el trabajo. Compartimos prácticas ¿compartimos saberes? Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a distancia, 7 (1-2), 113.
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148. doi:10.1002/tea.21037
Søndergaard, H., & Mulder, R.A. (2012). Collaborative learning through formative peer review: Pedagogy, programs and potential. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.728041
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students' persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12-23.
Tirado-Morueta, R., Pérez-Rodríguez, M.A., & Aguaded-Gómez, I. (2011). Blended e-learning en universidades andaluzas. Aula Abierta, 39(2), 47-58.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument (2003rd ed.)- Cambridge: CUP.
Trahtemberg, L. (2000). El impacto previsible de las nuevas tecnologías en la enseñanza y la organización escolar. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, (24), 37-62.http://rieoei.org/rie24f.htm
Zabalza-Beraza, M. (2017). El Prácticum y las prácticas externas en la formación universitaria. Practicum, 1(1). https://goo.gl/4I7h55
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles that are published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The authors grant the exploitation rights of the work accepted for publication to RIED, guarantee to the journal the right to be the first publication of research understaken and permit the journal to distribute the work published under the license indicated in point 2.
2. The articles are published in the electronic edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
3. Conditions for self-archiving. Authors are encouraged to disseminate electronically the OnlineFirst version (assessed version and accepted for publication) of its articles before publication, always with reference to its publication by RIED, favoring its circulation and dissemination earlier and with this a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community.
