Fostering University Students’ Written Argumentation via Recursive Reading: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Christian Tarchi, Ruth Villalón
{"title":"Fostering University Students’ Written Argumentation via Recursive Reading: A Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Christian Tarchi, Ruth Villalón","doi":"10.1080/10790195.2022.2021771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The present study analyzed the efficacy of a brief intervention aimed at scaffolding readers’ “recursivity” (i.e., going back to the texts) while reading multiple texts and writing an argumentative essay. The participants were 151 university students, randomly assigned to two conditions: experimental (Recursivity-induced, RI) and active control (AC). We collected data about participants’ thinking dispositions, perceived prior knowledge and perceived level of instruction in argumentative writing received, and prior beliefs. Then, students were assigned two texts about the evaluation of teachers, one pro and one against. RI students were prompted to compare the argumentation of each text with their own prior beliefs, whereas AC students were asked to write a summary of each text. Immediately after reading the texts and performing the accompanying tasks, RI and AC students were asked to write an argumentative essay to express their opinion on the topic. Process data were collected through the software Kidlogger. Results confirmed that the brief intervention improves students’ analysis of the belief-inconsistent text, the overall argumentative quality of students’ essay, and valid inferences made in a recall task one month after. The process analysis suggested that the intervention increases recursivity in at least a certain number of RI participants.","PeriodicalId":37761,"journal":{"name":"Journal of College Reading and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of College Reading and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2022.2021771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The present study analyzed the efficacy of a brief intervention aimed at scaffolding readers’ “recursivity” (i.e., going back to the texts) while reading multiple texts and writing an argumentative essay. The participants were 151 university students, randomly assigned to two conditions: experimental (Recursivity-induced, RI) and active control (AC). We collected data about participants’ thinking dispositions, perceived prior knowledge and perceived level of instruction in argumentative writing received, and prior beliefs. Then, students were assigned two texts about the evaluation of teachers, one pro and one against. RI students were prompted to compare the argumentation of each text with their own prior beliefs, whereas AC students were asked to write a summary of each text. Immediately after reading the texts and performing the accompanying tasks, RI and AC students were asked to write an argumentative essay to express their opinion on the topic. Process data were collected through the software Kidlogger. Results confirmed that the brief intervention improves students’ analysis of the belief-inconsistent text, the overall argumentative quality of students’ essay, and valid inferences made in a recall task one month after. The process analysis suggested that the intervention increases recursivity in at least a certain number of RI participants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
递归阅读培养大学生书面论证能力的随机对照试验
摘要本研究分析了在阅读多篇文章和撰写议论文时,旨在建立读者“递归性”(即回到文本)的简短干预的有效性。参与者是151名大学生,被随机分配到两个条件:实验(递归诱导,RI)和主动对照(AC)。我们收集了关于参与者的思维倾向、感知的先验知识和感知的议论文写作指导水平以及先验信念的数据。然后,学生们被分配了两篇关于教师评价的文章,一篇赞成,一篇反对。RI的学生被要求将每篇文章的论证与他们自己之前的信念进行比较,而AC的学生则被要求对每篇文章进行总结。在阅读课文并完成相关任务后,RI和AC的学生被要求立即写一篇议论文来表达他们对这个话题的看法。过程数据是通过Kidlogger软件收集的。结果证实,简短的干预提高了学生对信念不一致文本的分析,提高了学生论文的整体议论文质量,并在一个月后的回忆任务中做出了有效的推断。过程分析表明,干预增加了至少一定数量的RI参与者的复发性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of College Reading and Learning
Journal of College Reading and Learning Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of College Reading and Learning (JCRL) invites authors to submit their scholarly research for publication. JCRL is an international forum for the publication of high-quality articles on theory, research, and policy related to areas of developmental education, postsecondary literacy instruction, and learning assistance at the postsecondary level. JCRL is published triannually in the spring, summer, and fall for the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA). In addition to publishing investigations of the reading, writing, thinking, and studying of college learners, JCRL seeks manuscripts with a college focus on the following topics: effective teaching for struggling learners, learning through new technologies and texts, learning support for culturally and linguistically diverse student populations, and program evaluations of developmental and learning assistance instructional models.
期刊最新文献
Hospitality in the Writing Center: A Conceptual Framework for Tutors Navigating Academic Arguments: Teaching Reporting Verbs in Transitional Reading Courses Identifying Clusters of Less-Skilled College Student Readers Based on Cognitive Processes Bridging the Printed or Digital Controversy: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Digital and Print Resources on College Students’ Reading Comprehension Metacognitive Experiences of EFL Students as Predictors of Enjoyment, Engagement, and Performance in L2 Writing
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1