An experience of written products review among vocational training students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2020.i102.12Keywords:
Report, Vocational training, Action research, Evaluation, Laboratory, ChemistryAbstract
Here is presented an action-research experience about the writing and review processes of a laboratory report written in a specific technical format called “Standard Operating Procedure” by a group students of the vocational training degree “Laboratory”, which belongs to the professional family of Chemistry. The participant teacher was the author of this paper. Following to write the report, the students followed a peer review process, reading reports written by their partners and giving them some feedback in order to improve the written products. As it is explained later, the aims of the intervention were to help the students to increase their technical competence and also to try to allow them to progress in terms of their scientific literacy and in the progress in their development as active and responsible citizens. About the research analysis shown here, it was focused in studying the evolution of the features of those reports, in particular asking if their coherence and the quality of the information presented in them increase. As results, we founded improvements in some dimensions of the students reports after participating in the peer review process, and also a positive perception of the process among the students. Finally, the results are discussed and used to pose some educative implications.Downloads
References
Acevedo, J.A., Vázquez, A., Manassero, M.A. y Acevedo, P. (2003). Creencias sobre la tecnología y sus relaciones con la ciencia. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 2(2), 80-111.
Akuma, F.V. y Callaghan, R. (2019). Characterising Extrinsic Challenges Linked to the Design and Implementation of Inquiry-Based Practical Work. Research in Science Education, 49, 1677–1706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9671-x
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Bliss, J., & Askew, M. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 37-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498960220103
Brown, B.A., Reveles, J.M. y Kelly, G.J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: a theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779-802. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20069
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. y Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
Candela, A. (2020). 30 años de investigación sobre ciencia en el aula. Investigación en la Escuela, 100, 23-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2020.i100.0
Cano, M.I. (2009). La investigación escolar: un asunto de enseñanza y aprendizaje en la educación secundaria. Investigación en la Escuela, 67, 63-79. http://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2009.i67.05
Cañal, P. (2007). La investigación escolar, hoy. Alambique. Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 52, 9-19.
Chaktsiris, M. G. y Southworth, J. (2019). Thinking beyond writing development in peer review. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8005
Chase, C.C., Malkiewich, L. y Kumar, A.S. (2019). Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Science Education, 103(2), 440-471. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496
Cho, K. y Macarthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D. y Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261
Comisión Europea (1999). Directiva 1999/11/CE de la Comisión, de 8 de marzo de 1999, por la que se adaptan al progreso técnico los principios de buenas prácticas de laboratorio que se especifican en la Directiva 87/18/CEE del Consejo sobre la aproximación de las disposiciones legales, reglamentarias y administrativas relativas a la aplicación de los principios de prácticas correctas de laboratorio y al control de su aplicación para las pruebas sobre las sustancias químicas. Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas (23/3/1999).
Compañó, R. y Ríos, A. (2010). Garantía de la Calidad en los Laboratorios Analíticos. Síntesis.
Geertz, C. (1973). La interpretación de las culturas. Gedisa.
Gil, D., Carrascosa, J., Furió, C. y Martínez-Torregrosa, J. (1991). La enseñanza de las ciencias en la educación secundaria. Planteamientos didácticos generales y ejemplos de aplicación en las ciencias físico-químicas. ICE-Horsori.
Hetch, M., Knutsen, K. y Crowley, K (2019). Becoming a naturalist: interest development across the learning ecology. Science Education, 109(3), 691-713 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21503
Hodson, D. (1994). Hacia un enfoque más crítico del trabajo de laboratorio. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 12(3), 299-313.
Hofstein, A. y Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201
Keys, C.W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/291098-237X
Kvale, S. (1996). Interview Views: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications.
Lave, J. y Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S. y Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Martí, A. (2008). Nota Técnica de Prevención 508: Aseguramiento de la calidad en los laboratorios de higiene industrial: procedimientos normalizados de trabajo (PNT). Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo.
McDermott, M. y Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 217-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9225-6
McGinn, M.K. y Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028003014
McKernan, J. (1999). Investigación-acción y curriculum. Morata.
Moje, E. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy learning. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046001
Nelson, M. M. y Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 37(4), 375-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
Osborne, J. (2015). Practical Work in Science: Misunderstood and Badly Used? School Science Review, 96(357), 16-24.
Porlán, R. y Martín, J. (1994). El saber práctico de los profesores especialistas. Aportaciones desde las didácticas específicas. Investigación en la Escuela, 24, 49-58.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2&3), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643
Real Decreto 1369/2000, de 19 de julio, por el que se modifica el Real Decreto 822/1993, de 28 de mayo, por el que se establecen los principios de las buenas prácticas de laboratorio y su aplicación en la realización de estudios no clínicos sobre sustancias y productos químicos. Boletín Oficial del Estado (20/7/2000).
Real Decreto 817/1993, de 28 de mayo, por el que se establece el título de Técnico de Laboratorio y las correspondientes enseñanzas mínimas. Boletín Oficial del Estado (29/7/1993).
Reigosa C. y Blanco A. (2020). Un papel del uso de modos no textuales de representación del conocimiento científico en exposiciones de estudiantes de formación profesional. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 17(2), 2102. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2020.v17.i2.2102
Stake, R. (1998). Investigación con estudio de casos. Morata.
Thair, M. y Treagust, D.F. (1999). Teacher training reforms in Indonesian secondary science: the importance of practical work in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1002291098-2736
Wärnsby, A., Kauppinen, A, Aull, L., Leijen, D. y Moxley, J. (2018). Affective language in student peer reviews: Exploring data from three institutional contexts. Journal of Academic Writing, 8(1), 28-53. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v8i1.429
Wei, B. y Li, X. (2017) Exploring science teachers’ perceptions of experimentation: implications for restructuring school practical work, International Journal of Science Education, 39(13), 1775-1794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1351650
Yore, L.D. y Treagust, D.F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy - empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2&3), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336973
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work registered under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), which allows third parties to use the published work, provided that proper acknowledgement is given; the authorship of the work and first publication in AVANCES are mentioned; the material is not used for commercial purposes; and, if you create other material from the original material (e.g. a translation), you must distribute your contribution under this same licence as the original.
- Authors may enter into separate and additional contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., inclusion in an institutional repository or publication in a book) as long as they clearly indicate that the work was first published in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (e.g. on institutional or personal websites) before and during the review and publication process, as it may lead to productive exchanges and to a wider and faster dissemination of the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
Accepted 2020-11-16
Published 2020-12-24
- Abstract 294
- PDF (Español (España)) 159
