When scientific curiosity turns into a video tutorial for learning by teaching: Content knowledge, elaboration of the explanations and complexity of the questions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35362/rie8724572Keywords:
cooperative learning; educational video; learning by teaching; science education; teaching materials.Abstract
The creation of teaching materials by students is a way of learning by teaching, which offers a communicative situation by setting an audience and can contribute to activating mechanisms for knowledge elaboration. Given the scarce, but promising, practice of this kind of educational proposals in primary education, Bikos Project has been designed, in which pairs of students cooperatively create video tutorials based on their scientific curiosity. Three research aims are addressed: 1) To examine if there is any improvement in the specific knowledge about the question that the students answer in each video tutorial; 2) To estimate the degree of knowledge elaboration in the explanations that students offer in their video tutorials; and 3) To analyze the degree of complexity of the comprehension questions for the audience that students add throughout their video tutorials. The results of a pretest-posttest show significant improvements in specific knowledge. The exploratory analysis of the explanations suggests that about two thirds of the information has been sufficiently elaborated by students. The analysis of the comprehension questions indicates that the vast majority show a low level of complexity.
Downloads
References
Anderson, L. W. y Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Barbour, M., Kromrei, H., McLaren, A., Toker, S., Mani, N. y Wilson, V. (2009). Testing an assumption of the potential of homemade PowerPoint games. En I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen y D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1381-1387). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Bargh, J. y Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593-604. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B. y Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802713507
Benware, C. y Deci, E. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755-765. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021004755
Can, H. B. y Boz, Y. (2016). Structuring cooperative learning for motivation and conceptual change in the concepts of mixtures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 635-657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9602-5
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979
Coiro, J. y Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. http://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
Coll, C. (2013). La educación formal en la nueva ecología del aprendizaje: Tendencias, retos y agenda de investigación. En J. L. Rodríguez (Comp.), Aprendizaje y educación en la sociedad digital (pp. 156-170). Universitat de Barcelona. https://doi.org/10.1344/106.000002060
Coll, C. (2018). Procesos de aprendizaje generadores de sentido y estrategias de personalización. En C. Coll (Coord.), La personalización del aprendizaje (pp. 14-18). Graó.
Coll, C. y Rodríguez, J. L. (2008). Alfabetización, nuevas alfabetizaciones y alfabetización digital: Las TIC en el currículum escolar. En C. Coll y C. Monereo (Eds.), Psicología de la educación virtual (pp. 325-347). Morata.
Colley, C. y Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
Collins, A. y Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 18-27. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x
De la Hera, D. P., Sigman, M. y Calero, C. I. (2019). Social interaction and conceptual change pave the way away from children’s misconceptions about the Earth. NPJ Science of Learning, 4(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0051-3
Downie, J., Morton, J. A. y McCoustra, M. R. (2017). Bright lights: Big experiments! A public engagement activity for international year of light. Physics Education, 52(1), Article 015005.
Duran, D. (2014). Aprenseñar: Evidencias e implicaciones educativas de aprender enseñando. Narcea.
Duran, D. (2017). Learning-by-teaching: Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 476-484. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
Durán-García, M. E. y Durán-Aponte, E. E. (2013). La termodinámica en los estudiantes de tecnología: Una experiencia de aprendizaje cooperativo. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 31(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ec/v31n1.614
Eymur, G. y Geban, Ö. (2017). The collaboration of cooperative learning and conceptual change: Enhancing the students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 853-871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9716-z
Farrokhnia, M., Meulenbroeks, R. F. y van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Student-generated stop-motion animation in science classes: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 797-812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09857-1
Fernández-Enguita, M. (2017). Más escuela y menos aula. Morata.
Fiorella, L. y Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75-85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.01.001
Freire, P. y Faundez, A. (2010). Per una pedagogia de la pregunta. (V. Berenguer y C. Berenguer, Trad.). Edicions del Crec i Denes Editorial. (Obra original publicada en 1985)
Furberg, A. y Arnseth, H. C. (2009). Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: Analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(1), 157-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9161-6
Gallardo-Williams, M., Morsch, L. A., Paye, C. y Seery, M. K. (2020). Student-generated video in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21, 488-495. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00182D
Decreto 119/2015, de 23 de junio, de ordenación de las enseñanzas de la educación primaria. Diario Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya (DOGC), Núm. 6900. Departament d’Ensenyament, Generalitat de Catalunya. https://bit.ly/3AVs9hf
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C. y Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
Hoogerheide, V., Visee, J., Lachner, A. y van Gog, T. (2019). Generating an instructional video as homework activity is both effective and enjoyable. Learning and Instruction, 64, Article 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101226
Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802995
Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M. y Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence: An emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655-679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4
Jablonski, D., Hoban, G. F., Ransom, H. S. y Ward, K. S. (2015). Exploring the use of “slowmation” as a pedagogical alternative in science teaching and learning. Pacific-Asian Education, 27(1), 5–20.
Jacob, L., Lachner, A. y Scheiter, K. (2021). Does increasing social presence enhance the effectiveness of writing explanations? PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0250406. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250406
Knight, S. y Mercer, N. (2015). The role of exploratory talk in classroom search engine tasks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.931884
Kobayashi, K. (2019). Learning by preparing‐to‐teach and teaching: A meta‐analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(3), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12221
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Enseñar todos los lenguajes de la ciencia: Palabras, símbolos, imágenes y acciones. En M. Benlloch (Comp.), La educación en ciencias: Ideas para mejorar su práctica. Paidós.
Lin, J. W., Yen, M. H., Liang, J., Chiu, M. H. y Guo, C. J. (2016). Examining the factors that influence students’ science learning processes and their learning outcomes: 30 years of conceptual change research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2617-2646. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.000600a
Lin, S. W., Liu, Y., Chen, S. F., Wang, J. R. y Kao, H. L. (2016). Elementary school students’ science talk ability in inquiry-oriented settings in Taiwan: Test development, verification, and performance benchmarks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1199-1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9663-0
Lin, T. J., Lin, T. C., Potvin, P. y Tsai, C. C. (2019). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1550274
Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. L., Britt, M. A. y Rouet, J. F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 204-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769995
Mason, L. y Zaccoletti, S. (2021). Inhibition and conceptual learning in science: A review of studies. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 181-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09529-x
Mercer, N. (2001). Palabras y mentes: Cómo usamos el lenguaje para pensar juntos. (G. Sánchez-Barberán, Trad.). Paidós. (Obra original publicada en 2000)
Mills, R., Tomas, L. y Lewthwaite, B. (2019). The impact of student-constructed animation on middle school students’ learning about plate tectonics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9755-z
Monereo, C. y Fuentes, M. (2008). La enseñanza y el aprendizaje de estrategias de búsqueda y selección de la información en entornos virtuales. En C. Coll y C. Monereo (Eds.), Psicología de la educación virtual (pp. 386-408). Morata.
Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I. y Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474-492. http://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000071
OCDE (2017, Febrero). How does PISA for development measure scientific literacy? PISA for Development Brief 2017/2. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-for-development/10-How-PISA-D-measures-science-literacy.pdf
Ødegaard, M., Arnesen, N. E. y Klette, K. (2016). Talk and use of language in the science classroom: Characteristic features. En K. Klette, O. K. Bergem y A. Roe (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Lower Secondary Schools in the Era of PISA and TIMSS (pp. 101-112). Springer.
Pavón, F. y Martínez-Aznar, M. M. (2014). La metodología de resolución de problemas como investigación (MRPI): Una propuesta indagativa para desarrollar la competencia científica en estudiantes que cursan un programa de diversificación. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(3), 469-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1290
Penttilä, J., Kallunki, V., Niemi, H. M. y Multisilta, J. (2016). A structured inquiry into a digital story: Students report the making of a superball. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 8(3), 19-34. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.2016070102
Perales, F. J. y Vílchez, J. M. (2015). Iniciación a la investigación educativa con estudiantes de secundaria: El papel de las ilustraciones en los libros de texto de ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 33(1), 243-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1484
Pérez-Echeverría, M., Martí, E. y Pozo, J. I. (2010). Los sistemas externos de representación como herramientas de la mente. Cultura y Educación, 22(2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1174/113564010791304519
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351-1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013
Pozo, J. I. (2014). Psicología del aprendizaje humano: Adquisición de conocimiento y cambio personal. Morata.
Reigosa, C. y Jiménez, M. P. (2011). Formas de actuar de los estudiantes de laboratorio para la fundamentación de afirmaciones y propuestas de acción. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 29(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ec/v29n1.128
Reyna, J. y Meier, P. (2018). Learner-generated digital media (LGDM) as an assessment tool in tertiary science education: A review of literature. IAFOR Journal of Education, 6(3), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.6.3.06
Ribosa, J. y Duran, D. (2021). Student-generated teaching materials: A scoping review mapping the research field [Manuscrito presentado para su publicación]. Departamento de Psicología Básica, Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Rosa, D. y Martínez-Aznar, M. M. (2019). Resolución de problemas abiertos en ecología para la ESO. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 37(2), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2541
Roscoe, R. y Chi, M. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534-574. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309920
Siko, J. P. (2013). Are they climbing the pyramid? Rating student-generated questions in a game design project. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21432/t26k5m
Sinatra, G. M. y Hofer, B. K. (2016). Public understanding of science: Policy and educational implications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216656870
Sinatra, G. M. y Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
Snelson, C. (2018). Video production in content-area pedagogy: A scoping study of the research literature. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 294-306. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1504788
Soto, M. (2015). Elementary students’ mathematical explanations and attention to audience with screencasts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(4), 242-258. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1078190
Tabach, M. y Friedlander, A. (2017). Algebraic procedures and creative thinking. ZDM, 49(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0803-y
Topping, K., Buchs, C., Duran, D. y Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. Routledge.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja-Roblin, N., Tondeur, J. y van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (A. R. Luria, M. López-Morillas, M. Cole y J. V. Wertsch, Trad.). Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1995). Pensamiento y lenguaje. (M. M. Rotger, Trad.). Fausto. (Obra original publicada en 1934)
Webb, M. y Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200183
Yeung, K. L., Carpenter, S. K. y Corral, D. (2021). A comprehensive review of educational technology on objective learning outcomes in academic contexts. Educational Psychology Review. Publicación avanzada en línea. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09592-4
Yu, F. Y. y Wu, W. S. (2020). Effects of student-generated feedback corresponding to answers to online student-generated questions on learning: What, why, and how? Computers and Education, 145, Article 103723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103723
Yu, F. Y., Wu, W. S. y Huang, H. C. (2018). Promoting middle school students’ learning motivation and academic emotions via student-created feedback for online student-created multiple-choice questions. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(5), 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0398-x
Yu, F. Y. y Yang, Y. T. (2014). To see or not to see: Effects of online access to peer-generated questions on performance. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17(3), 27-39.
Zhang, M. y Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
Zhu, Z., Bernhard, D. y Gurevych (2009). A multi-dimensional model for assessing the quality of answers in social QyA sites (Informe núm. TUD-CS-2009-0158). Technische Universität Darmstadt. https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/1940/1/TR_dimension_model.pdf
Zurcher, D. M., Phadke, S., Coppola, B. P. y McNeil, A. J. (2016). Using student-generated instructional materials in an e-homework platform. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1871-1878. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00384
How to Cite
Published
Issue
Section
License
Any authors who publish with this journal accept the following terms:
