Fostering instructor-student argumentative interaction in online lecturing to large groups: a study amidst the Covid-19 pandemic

Contenido principal del artículo

Pablo Antonio Archila
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0225-4701
Silvia Restrepo
Anne-Marie Truscott de Mejía
Roberto Rueda-Esteban
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5957-6261
Natasha I. Bloch
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4769-1027

Resumen

The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the development and implementation of online education in higher education institutions around the globe. Online lecturing to large groups has been part of this acceleration. The problem is that synchronous face-to-face lectures and synchronous online lectures are widely criticized for reinforcing the hegemony of instructor-centered traditional approaches and rarely involving instructor-student and student-student argumentative interaction. This study aimed to provide evidence that online informal formative assessment (OIFA) can be used to provide undergraduates with explicit opportunities to participate in instructor-student argumentative interaction. An OIFA-based pedagogical strategy was implemented amidst the Covid-19 pandemic in the online lecturing sessions of a science course with 76 undergraduates (40 females and 36 males, 16–23 years old) in Colombia. It was found that OIFA can contribute to instructor-student argumentative interaction as well as to being able to better address undergraduate learning needs. Practical implications for university science education in the pandemic and post-pandemic eras are discussed.


Keywords: Covid-19, formative assessment, instructor-student argumentative interaction, online learning, university science education.

Palabras clave
Covid-19; formative assessment; instructor-student argumentative interaction; online learning; university science education,

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Sección
Fundamentos y líneas de trabajo

Citas

Archila, P. A. (2015). Using history and philosophy of science to promote students’ argumentation. A teaching–learning sequence based on the discovery of oxygen. Science & Education, 24(9), 1201–1226.

Archila, P. A. (2017). Using drama to promote argumentation in science education: The case of “Should’ve”. Science & Education, 26(3-4), 345–375.

Archila, P. A. (2018). Evaluating arguments from a play about ethics in science: A study with medical learners. Argumentation, 32(1), 53–76.

Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2018). Using formative assessment to promote argumentation in a university bilingual science course. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1669–1695.

Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2019). Promoting undergraduates’ awareness of the importance of thinking critically about false or inaccurate scientific information presented in news articles. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 16(13), 3106.

Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2020). Using historical scientific controversies to promote undergraduates’ argumentation. Science & Education, 29(3), 647–671.

Archila, P. A., Molina, J., Danies, G., Truscott de Mejía, A.-M., & Restrepo, S. (2021a). Providing undergraduates with opportunities to explicitly reflect on how news articles promote the public (mis)understanding of science. Science & Education, 30(2), 267–291.

Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2021b). Fostering bilingual written scientific argumentation (BWSA) through collaborative learning (CL): evidence from a university bilingual science course. International Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 1–29.

Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2021c). Using a controversy about health, biology, and indigenous knowledge to promote undergraduates’ awareness of the importance of respecting the traditions and beliefs of indigenous communities: The case of paragonimiasis in Colombia. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(1), 141–171.

Archila, P. A., Danies, G., Molina, J., Truscott de Mejía, A.-M., & Restrepo, S. (2021d). Towards Covid-19 literacy. Science & Education, 30(4), 785–808.

Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York: Springer.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 1. Washington: The GeorgeWashington University.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.

Colao, A., Piscitelli, P., Pulimeno, M., Colazzo, S., Miani, A., & Giannini, S. (2020). Rethinking the role of the school after COVID-19. The Lancet Public Health, 5(7), 370.

Cosi, S., Voltas, N., Lázaro-Cantabrana, J. L., Morales, P., Calvo, M., Molina, S., & Quiroga, M. Á. (2020). Formative assessment at university using digital technology tools. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 24(1), 164–183.

Cowie, B. (2012). Focusing on the classroom: Assessment for learning. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 679–690). Dordrecht: Springer.

Duss, K. (2020). Formative assessment and feedback tool. Basel: Springer.

Erduran, S. (2020a). Science education in the era of a pandemic. Science & Education, 29(2), 233–235.

Erduran, S. (2020b). Bringing nuance to “the science” in public policy and science understanding. Science & Education, 29(3), 487–489.

Erduran, S. (2021). Science education and the pandemic, 1 year on. Science & Education, 30(2), 201–204.

Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). New York: Springer.

Erduran, S., Guilfoyle, L., & Park, W. (2020). Science and religious education teachers’ views of argumentation and its teaching. Research in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9758-z

Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step (16th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Gogus, A. (2012). Active learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 77–80). Springer: New York.

Hoidn, S., & Klemenčič, M. (2021). Introduction and overview. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 1–13). Abingdon: Routledge.

Holmeier, M., Grob, R., Nielsen, J. A., Rönnebeck, S., & Ropohl, M. (2018). Written teacher feedback: Aspects of quality, benefits and challenges. In J. Dolin & R. Evans (Eds.), Transforming Assessment (175–208). Cham: Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). New York: Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Brocos, P. (2017). Processes of negotiation in socio-scientific argumentation about vegetarianism in teacher education. In F. Arcidiacono, & A. Bova (Eds.), Interpersonal argumentation in educational and professional contexts (pp. 117–139). Cham: Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Brocos, P. (2021). Argumentation and inquiry learning. In R. G. Duncan, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of inquiry and learning (pp. 221–238). New York: Routledge.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1001–1015). Dordrecht: Springer.

Mailizar., Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), 1–9.

Mahmood, S. (2021). Instructional strategies for online teaching in COVID-19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1), 199–203.

Matsushita, K. (2018). An invitation to deep active learning. In K. Matsushita (Ed.), Deep active learning (pp. 15–33). Springer: Singapore.

Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

Mindrila, D. (2017). Exploratory factor analysis: An overview. In D. Mindrila (Ed.), Exploratory factor analysis (pp. 1–25). Nova Science Publishers: New York.

Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2008). La revolución educativa: Plan sectorial de educación 2006­2010. Available at: https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/articles-156179_recurso_7.unknown#:~:text=Los%20rangos%20de%20edad%20utilizados,Superior%20(17%20a%2021)

Mizokami, S. (2018). Deep active learning from the perspective of active learning theory. In K. Matsushita (Ed.), Deep active learning (pp. 79–91). Springer: Singapore.

Morton, A. (2009). Lecturing to large groups. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 58–71). New York: Routledge.

Muller Mirza, N. (2015). Can we learn through disagreements? A sociocultural perspective on argumentative interactions in a pedagogical setting in higher education. Teaching Innovations, 28(3), 145–166.

Namdar, A. O., & Namdar, B. (2021). Blending creative drama and computer-supported collaborative learning for socioscientific argumentation. In W. A. Powell (Ed.), Socioscientific issues-based instruction for scientific literacy development (pp. 132–160). Hershey: IGI Global.

Rached, E., & Grangeat, M. (2021). French teachers’ informal formative assessment in the context of inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 385–406.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2015). Cognitive labs. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 167–171). Dordrecht: Springer.

Rush, S. C. (2019). Implementing a qualitative video and audio analysis study using the Transana platform: Applications for research in education settings. SAGE Research Methods Cases. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526484437

Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of COVID-19 on the performance of grade 12 students: Implications for STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), 1–6.

Sun, L., Tang, Y., & Zuo, W. (2020). Coronavirus pushes education online. Nature Materials, 19(6), 687.

Sunal, C. S., & Wright, V. H. (2012). Online learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2499–2502). Springer: New York.

Thomas, M. S. C., & Rogers, V. (2020). Education, the science of learning, and the COVID‑19 crisis. Prospects, 49(1-2), 87–90.

Viera, A. J. & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.

Wen, J., Wang, W., Kozak, M., Liu, X., & Hou, H. (2021). Many brains are better than one: The importance of interdisciplinary studies on COVID-19 in and beyond tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 46(2), 310–313.

Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Witze, A. (2020). Universities will never be the same after the coronavirus crisis. Nature, 582(7811), 162–164.

World Health Organization (2020a). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report - 52. Geneva: World Health Organization. March 12, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200312-sitrep-52-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=e2bfc9c0_4. Accessed 11 March 2021.

World Health Organization (2020b). Novel Coronavirus(2019-nCoV) Situation Report - 11. Geneva: World Health Organization. January 31, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200131-sitrep-11-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=de7c0f7_4. Accessed 11 March 2021.

Yamin, M. (2020). Counting the cost of COVID-19. International Journal of Information Technology, 12(2), 311–317.

Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2014). Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 531–552.

Zhu, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Education in and after Covid-19: Immediate responses and long-term visions. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 695–699.