Conference Papers by Celia España
The ability of integrating information from different sources which present contradictory positio... more The ability of integrating information from different sources which present contradictory positions is fundamental in the current information society. This competence is even more relevant for teachers, since different agents from the educational community may not have the same opinion about educational issues. This paper presents results of the first part of a broader study on argumentative and integration abilities in writing at different degrees and universities in Spain.
One hundred pre-service teachers who were studying the first course in Education in the University of Cantabria volunteered to participate. The following data were collected: a) general academic writing conceptions b) general argumentative strategy declared c) perception of competence in several of the processes involved in written argumentation d) level of training received in relation to argumentation. Afterwards, a subsample of 50 students carried out a synthesis from two contradictory texts in which two positions about an educational issue were claimed. Their synthesis were coded in a four options scale regarding their general approach to argumentation and the level of integration achieved.
The participants hold epistemic writing conceptions less sophisticated than expected for Higher Education, since they indicated a medium agreement to the Epistemic Scale and did not reject completely the Reproductive scale. However, most of them declared to use the most elaborated argumentative strategies. Furthermore, the students feel to be competent to a greater extend on the most simple process involved in writing an argumentation although only few of them considered to have received a high level instruction on argumentative writing. Regarding their written products, their synthesis showed, in general terms, low integration skills.
Results suggest that pre-service teachers could be overestimating their argumentation skills, even though they are aware of their lack of experience. The quality of their written products confirms the need of training in written argumentation abilities.
Uploads
Conference Papers by Celia España
One hundred pre-service teachers who were studying the first course in Education in the University of Cantabria volunteered to participate. The following data were collected: a) general academic writing conceptions b) general argumentative strategy declared c) perception of competence in several of the processes involved in written argumentation d) level of training received in relation to argumentation. Afterwards, a subsample of 50 students carried out a synthesis from two contradictory texts in which two positions about an educational issue were claimed. Their synthesis were coded in a four options scale regarding their general approach to argumentation and the level of integration achieved.
The participants hold epistemic writing conceptions less sophisticated than expected for Higher Education, since they indicated a medium agreement to the Epistemic Scale and did not reject completely the Reproductive scale. However, most of them declared to use the most elaborated argumentative strategies. Furthermore, the students feel to be competent to a greater extend on the most simple process involved in writing an argumentation although only few of them considered to have received a high level instruction on argumentative writing. Regarding their written products, their synthesis showed, in general terms, low integration skills.
Results suggest that pre-service teachers could be overestimating their argumentation skills, even though they are aware of their lack of experience. The quality of their written products confirms the need of training in written argumentation abilities.
One hundred pre-service teachers who were studying the first course in Education in the University of Cantabria volunteered to participate. The following data were collected: a) general academic writing conceptions b) general argumentative strategy declared c) perception of competence in several of the processes involved in written argumentation d) level of training received in relation to argumentation. Afterwards, a subsample of 50 students carried out a synthesis from two contradictory texts in which two positions about an educational issue were claimed. Their synthesis were coded in a four options scale regarding their general approach to argumentation and the level of integration achieved.
The participants hold epistemic writing conceptions less sophisticated than expected for Higher Education, since they indicated a medium agreement to the Epistemic Scale and did not reject completely the Reproductive scale. However, most of them declared to use the most elaborated argumentative strategies. Furthermore, the students feel to be competent to a greater extend on the most simple process involved in writing an argumentation although only few of them considered to have received a high level instruction on argumentative writing. Regarding their written products, their synthesis showed, in general terms, low integration skills.
Results suggest that pre-service teachers could be overestimating their argumentation skills, even though they are aware of their lack of experience. The quality of their written products confirms the need of training in written argumentation abilities.