Miika Marttunen

Students Evaluating Internet Sources: From Versatile Evaluators to Uncritical Readers

The Internet is a significant information resource for students due to the ease of access it allows to a vast amount of information. As the quality of the information on the Internet varies, it is important that students are able to evaluate such information critically. The aim of the study was to investigate how students evaluate Internet sources in an authentic learning task. Upper secondary school students (n = 25) were asked to look for source material on the Internet in order to write an essay. They were asked to verbalize their thoughts during the material gathering process. Their verbalizations and actions on the Internet were recorded and analyzed. The five evaluation profiles emerged: 1) versatile evaluators; 2) relevance-orientated evaluators; 3) limited evaluators; 4) disorientated readers; and 5) uncritical readers.

Working on Understanding During Collaborative Online Reading

This study examines how students in Finland (16-18 years of age) constructed meaning and knowledge in a collaborative online reading situation. Student pairs (n = 19) were asked to write a joint essay on a controversial issue. First, the pairs discussed the topic freely to activate their prior knowledge. Next, they gathered source material on the Internet. Finally, they composed a joint essay. The data were collected using an interaction approach to verbal protocol data, along with video screen captures. In the analysis, three units were employed: episodes (n = 562) for describing online reading practices; utterances (n = 944) for identifying collaborative reading strategies; and collaborative reading patterns (n = 435) for clarifying how the student pairs constructed meaning and knowledge. Collaborative reading patterns were categorized according to a four-part model. A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify students’ collaborative reading profiles. Five collaborative reading profiles emerged: co-constructers (two pairs), collaborators (two pairs), blenders (six pairs), individually oriented readers (four pairs), and silent readers (five pairs). Overall, it appeared that some students were capable of working in pairs, whereas others had a stronger preference for working alone. Collaborative profiles might offer teachers both an evaluative and an instructional tool to support collaborative interaction in their classrooms.

Commenting on Written Arguments as a Part of Argumentation Skills — comparison between students engaged in traditional vs on‐line study

ABSTRACT The use of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) has increased in the area of education. This article reports a study whose aim was to improve the argumentation and scientific thinking skills of university students through argumentative on‐line studying. The research problems dealt on the one hand with learning outcomes in terms of subject content and on the other hand with argumentation skills. The results were compared between on‐line students and students who studied in a traditional way. The results indicated that the traditional group got better learning outcomes than the on‐line students who, by contrast, succeeded better in the tasks of argumentation skills. The findings suggest that the argumentative on‐line studying method would be suitable when trying to improve argumentation skills.

Argumentation Skills as Prerequisites for Collaborative Learning among Finnish, French, and English Secondary School Students.

Argumentation skills of secondary school students were evaluated in Finland (n = 290), France (n = 54), and England (n = 41). The data were collected from 4 tasks comprising 7 variables. The results indicated that most of the students had correctly justified arguments and conclusions, and composed clear claims and relevant arguments. However, many students had difficulties in recognising the main claim and arguments for it in an expository text, and in commenting analytically on an argumentative text. Thus the students possessed the prerequisites for argumentative reasoning and writing but need further practice in analytical and critical reading.

Collaborative Learning through Chat Discussions and Argument Diagrams in Secondary School

Abstract This study clarifies whether secondary school students develop their argumentation skills through reading and collaboration. The students first constructed an individual argument diagram on genetically modified organisms, read three articles, and improved their diagrams. Next, they engaged in a chat debate, reflected on their debate by constructing a collaborative argument diagram on it, and finally finished their individual diagrams. The analyses compared the diagrams students finished after the debate and reflection with the diagrams they constructed before the debate. Collaboration not only encouraged students to elaborate their previous arguments but also helped them to recall and create ideas and arguments.

Teaching Argumentation Skills in an Electronic Mail Environment

SUMMARY This paper discusses the qualities of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) relevant to the teaching of argumentation skills. It describes an electronic mail (e‐mail) study experiment carried out in an MEd level course in education. The aim of the experiment was to explore the possibility of using CMC to promote the argumentation skills of university students. The experiment (n = 31) was based on a comparison of tutor‐led seminar mode (2 groups) with a student‐led discussion mode (2 groups) using an e‐mail study. The students practised argumentation during a six‐week e‐mail study period. The comparison group (n = 193) engaged in a traditional self‐study. All the students’ argumentation skills were measured after the experiment. The results indicated better argumentation skills among the e‐mail students compared to those engaged in the self‐study, and suggested that it is possible to promote argumentation skills through e‐mail. In addition, the results suggested the superiority of the discussion mo...

Computer‐based and Face‐to‐face Collaborative Argumentation in Secondary Schools in England and Finland

Abstract This article focuses on the analysis of secondary school students’ argumentative interactions in England and Finland, within specific face‐to‐face and computer‐based environments. We propose that a combination of learning environments, in conjunction with teacher input and support, is important for developing argumentation skills in the classroom. Face‐to‐face argumentation, in particular, offers ample opportunity for concentrating on the quality (through deeper exploration) of arguments; such learning can enhance the construction of well‐structured arguments often associated with some computer‐based environments, such as synchronous computer chat.

Inducing Socio-Cognitive Conflict in Finnish and German Groups of Online Learners by CSCL Script.

Collaborative learners are often meant to be guided by collaboration scripts to identify, discuss, and resolve differences of opinion and knowledge. How learners engage in and resolve conflict, however, may be highly dependent on learners’ cultural background. In this article, we examine the extent to which a peer-critique collaboration script induces socio-cognitive conflicts within Finnish and German groups of online learners. In a 2 × 2-design (Finnish/German × without script/with script), we analyzed online discussions in a problem-based learning environment of 16 German and 28 Finnish groups of three (132 participants in total) with or without script support. Trained coders rated the extent to which learners engaged in socio-cognitive conflicts, by indicating either agreement or disagreement. The results show that the peer-critique script could develop socio-cognitive conflicts. The German groups were affected more strongly by the script, even though the interaction patterns of unscripted German groups were already more conflict-oriented than those of unscripted Finnish groups. Agreement in Finnish groups mostly indicated that learners integrate arguments of learning partners into their own line of reasoning. Agreement in German groups, however, served coordination and continuation of discourse, e.g., by indicating comprehension of others’ ideas. The results showed that learning environments and collaboration scripts need to be designed with respect to culture. Furthermore, the findings emphasized that findings on computer-supported collaboration scripts cannot simply be generalized across different cultures.

University Applicants’ Critical Thinking Skills: The Case of the Finnish Educational Sciences

ABSTRACT This study investigates the quality of the critical thinking skills of applicants (n = 77) seeking entry to the faculty of educational sciences in a Finnish university and how these skills are associated with the applicant’s age, previous higher education experience, and matriculation and entrance examination scores. The data consist of the applicants’ responses to problem-solving tasks and their matriculation and entrance examination scores. Critical thinking skills were measured with comparison and argumentation tasks. The results indicate that comparison of the texts and analysis of the arguments they contained were more difficult tasks than putting forward arguments both for and against of one’s personal standpoint. In addition, previous experience of higher education predicted participants’ comparison skills and their matriculation examination grades predicted their argumentation skills. The feasibility of using critical comparison tasks in the entrance examination tests is discussed.

Argumentation Course by Electronic Mail.

Abstract This article examines the question of whether electronic‐mail (e‐mail) discussions provide university students with an appropriate and profitable environment for practising argumentation and critical thinking skills. An experiment in which 31 undergraduate students and two tutors engaged in argumentative e‐mail discussions is described. The discussions were related to two set books on the sociology of education. The participants’ perceptions of the discussions and of e‐mail as a study method were evaluated by means of a student questionnaire and tutor interviews. Most of the students found that the discussions included a lot of constructive critique, mutual encouragement and constructive advising. A majority of the students also reported taking an active part in the discussions and opening new exchanges by presenting their own grounded standpoints. The realized e‐mail discussions also included argumentation and debates between the students. Furthermore, the students found the learning climate to ...