For researchers

A review of the literature reveals a discrepancy about what type of task with concept maps is the most effective for individual learning. Furthermore, to date, no research has compared these tasks in individual and collaborative learning contexts. This paper explores the influence of the different tasks on learning, involving concept maps and summaries. The participants were 226 undergraduates who were randomly assigned to 12 experimental conditions. Two independent variables were considered: the knowledge representation task (fill-in-the-blanks concept map, sort a shuffled concepts-provided map, self-construct a map, write a summary) and the structure of the activity (individual + collaborative, collaborative + individual, and fully individual). In addition to the evaluation of comprehension and delayed recall, 4195 verbal exchanges during the collaborative activities were recorded and analyzed. Results confirm an interaction between the type of task and the structure of the activity. The students who self-constructed complete concept maps and then discussed them in pairs obtained better learning results than those in other conditions. Verbal interaction was much more dialogic in this type of task, with a significantly greater proportion than in the other conditions of in-depth exploratory talk episodes, and a lower proportion of cumulative talk. However, the fill-in-the-blanks and shuffled-concepts conditions provided a greater proportion of superficial exploratory talk, and the collaborative summary condition generated a greater proportion of non-dialogic talk fragments. The findings are discussed in the context of the ICAP (Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive learning) framework, cognitive load theory and the sociocultural perspective on dialogic learning.

This  study  examines  the  components  of  historical thinking   that   are   evident   in   tasks   involving

representation and peer discussion on Secondary Education.    The participants were    randomly assigned  to  two  groups:  a  collaborative  pair-completion of semiempty concept mapping group

and  a  collaborative  pair-writing  of  summary group  from  a  text  on  colonial  Imperialism.  1788

utterances, during peer discussion activities, were analysed,  as  well  as  the  results  of  a  historical

reasoning test and a recall test. The discussion on concept   mapping,   however,   did   generated   a

higher   percentage   of   messages   focused   on historical   reasoning,   especially   on   the   causal

explanation of the historical phenomenon, as well as  a  higher  number  of  substantive  concepts  and metahistorical  concepts  than  collaborative  pairs-summary  writing  group;  while  the  students  who

collaboratively  wrote  summaries  uttered  more messages related to the historical contextualization.

Learning  outcomes  were  also significantly  better  for  students  who  worked  with maps.

Concept mapping is one of the instructional strategies implemented in collaborative learning to support discourse and learning. This study compared the effect on learning of individual or collaborative concept mapping in a Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and traditional pencil-and-paper setting in Primary Education. A quasi-experimental repeated measures design (i.e., pretest, posttest, retention test) was applied. Forty-four 6th grade students from two different elementary schools participated in the study. In terms of processes, discursive strategies were analysed during the collaborative construction phase in both settings. The results show that concept maps developed collaboratively in traditional pencil-and-paper settings produced better results in comprehension and delayed recall than those technology-assisted. In addition to the evaluation of the comprehension and delayed recall, verbal exchanges during the collaborative activities were recorded and analyzed. Findings revealed low-quality discourse sequences in both settings. In this sense, concept mapping in computer-assisted settings does not necessarily lead to an effi cient and effective use and support the learning of difficult concepts to a greater extent than in pencil-and-paper settings

The aim of this study was to compare different collaborative (spontaneous and structured) story writing practices in a sample of 50 sixth graders students (11–12 years old). For the spontaneous synchronous writing practices, the dyads wrote the texts without any guidelines to structure the collaboration. Meanwhile, in the structured writing mode the students were asked to alternate the role of writing and revising each segment of text with their partner. In total, 2,682 communicative acts between dyad members were recorded and categorised from a dialogic and metalinguistic point of view during the synchronous production of the texts. Discourse analysis shows a pattern of asymmetrical dictator-scribe interaction during the spontaneous collaboration in heterogeneous pairs. Communicative acts of revision were focused on grammatical comments. On the contrary, the structured collaboration facilitated more symmetrical and balanced interaction. Semantic-lexical revision was more frequent in this condition. The implications of these results are discussed to understand how primary school students collaboratively write texts. The results also help us to explain the discrepancies in the literature and to improve the writing practices of students at this stage of their education.

There is abundant research on the use of concept maps in education. However, the most notable efforts have focused on learning outcomes as a consequence of individually constructed concept mapping for science concept learning. In the less explored field of history, some studies have found positive effects of collaborative concept mapping. However, student interaction has not been analyzed. This study employed quantitative and qualitative methods based on classroom discourse analysis to examine the extent to which students engage in historical reasoning and transactive interaction when they collaboratively complete a semiempty concept map, versus when they collaboratively write a summary, about 19th-century Western imperialism. The participants were 20 secondary education students from two history classes with an average age of 16 years. Within each class, the students were randomly assigned to the different conditions: collaborative concept mapping and collaborative summary writing. Student interaction was analyzed at two different levels: the content level and modes of co-construction. The results show that the students in the semiempty concept mapping condition engaged significantly more in causal explanation and argumentation and used more historical and metahistorical concepts in their reasoning than the students in the summary writing condition. Interaction in the semiempty concept mapping condition included a much higher percentage of utterances which denoted the convergence and integration of the knowledge contributed by the partners in the dyad. This kind of transactive interaction not only reflected co-construction but also historical reasoning.

Students have their first contact with the subject of history in elementary education. At this point, they have still not developed the reading strategies that this type of domain requires. At elementary level, teachers must support their students to contextualize information and make explicit the relationships among ideas as a basic aspect of historical reasoning in the classroom. This paper explores the ways in which teachers with specific experience in teaching history in elementary education support their students to access the contents and relationships in history textbooks. Results show how teachers often contextualized and shared the ideas and the relationships among those ideas needed to understand the text. However, once the help provided to their students has been analysed in relation to the perceived level of complexity, the data reveal that teachers focused on the less complex ideas and relationships, rather than on the more complex ones. This seemingly paradoxical strategy could be explained by the discrepancy between the intrinsic complexity of texts and the learners’ historical background knowledge.

This study focuses on the production of anaphoric devices in history teachers' oral explanations in comparison with those in textbooks. First, a revision of the anaphora concept and its classification in the specialized literature is made. A synthesis is proposed integrating two criteria: the type of word and inference, associated to 6 types of anaphora. Second, from this classification a system of categories is constructed to compare anaphora production in a sample of 19 history texts. The results reveal a higher frequency of grammatical anaphora (pronominal) in oral discourse and, on the contrary, a greater abundance of non-equivalent conceptual anaphora in written texts. Finally, the implications of these results are discussed in relation to the cohesion of historical explanations in the classroom.

This study analyzes interaction in a primary school science classroom. We compare the verbal scaffolding strategies used by a teacher during lessons from the same instructional unit taught in CLIL (English) and regular (Spanish) contexts. Results show that although there was no difference in the amount of information (‘content’) made available to students through the interactions, different verbal strategies were used (precision, justification and recall were more frequent in Spanish and exemplification in English) and that students were more active in engaging with science knowledge in the Spanish context. We discuss these findings in relation to the level of abstraction the teacher supported in interacting about science in the regular session, with implications for supporting children in learning both content and language in CLIL contexts.

Story writing is a fundamental activity toward the development of writing skills in the first years of school education. In a classroom context however, its assessment is often focused on superficial aspects of grammar and spelling. It is widely known that there is a lack of instruments with demonstrated validity and reliability to enable the assessment of semantics and rhetoric in this context. Therefore, the objective of this research was to build and validate a story assessment rubric (RER) to assess the writing tasks of school children of 8-14 years of age. We analyzed 292 texts written by students at those levels of education. The data provided support the validity of the story assessment rubric (RER). This suggests that the dimensional structure, as well as the operationalization of criteria and levels of achievement, are relevant and discriminative enough to be implemented at these levels of the education system. The reliability of the instrument also yielded positive results, in terms of internal consistency and objectivity of implementation. However, the results of the pilot study show some small inconsistencies in a few levels of achievements, such as in the highest

One of the most widespread practices in compulsory education is the annotation of feedback messages by teachers on texts written by students. The aim of this paper is to describe the nature of these types of teachers’ responses, in order establish possible profiles of assessment practices in Elementary and Secondary Education, as well as to identify which aspects of writing a story are considered more important in writing assessment. An analysis was made of 10,585 assessment messages which 41 schoolteachers in Elementary and Compulsory Secondary Education wrote on short stories composed by 393 students from various schools. The assessment notes were categorized according to code, place, extension, assessment content, and implicit metalinguistic content. Findings reveal the predominance of direct correction of specific spelling and grammar mistakes. The frequency of these corrections is, additionally, the best predictor of the global grade given by the teacher for the composition. Therefore, we conclude that teachers of compulsory education approach assessment of narrative texts from a conception which places excessive emphasis on more local and superficial aspects of the composition in detriment of other semantic, rhetorical or pragmatic aspects. Some teachers, however, mostly in Secondary Education, also recorded non-corrective assessment content, such as markings, questions, suggestions for expansion, or justifications. Certain assessment patterns are evident, which combine other types of evaluation (semantic-organizational, or superficial). Finally, the limitations and implications of those results toward teacher training are discussed.

Rhetorical devices signal the authors’ attitudes and intentions to their texts or their audiences. Mastering these resources characterises academic language proficiency and contributes to academic success. We explored whether oral and written academic texts provide different opportunities to gain knowledge about rhetorical devices and academic language. We compared 10 teachers’ lessons with 10 textbooks – matched according to educational level (Secondary Education), topic (History), instructional content and genre – to determine the frequency, type and format of rhetorical devices: visual forms, reduced verbal forms, or completely discursive forms (with or without explicit orders). The results show that teachers employ more rhetorical devices, include rhetorical devices practically absent from textbooks (those related to discourse-knowledge integration, monitoring, and inter/intra-referential processes), and use both reduced expressions and completely discursive forms (with and without explicit orders). Textbooks employ more rhetorical devices for the overall connection of ideas and widely exploit visual forms.