The impact of collaborative online reading on summarizing skills

The aim of this study was to determine whether, as a result of collaborative-online reading of a chapter from a book of an academic nature, the quality of the collaborative summary that the readers would write would be higher than that written by readers who would both read the same chapter and write a summary in a face-to-face setting. In this study we examined the difference between the summaries written by participants from two groups, each group was divided into subgroups of 3 participants who had read collaboratively a chapter of a book, and collaborated on writing a summary. The participants of the experimental group read the chapter as it appeared in a website for collaborative reading built especially for this study and the participants were asked to summarize the chapter on a shared online digital document. The participants of the control group were asked to read the chapter face-to-face and to collaboratively summarize it in hand writing. The quality of the summaries was evaluated with a tool developed by Rivard (2001). This tool was developed to measure the quality of the summaries. In our study the main and secondary ideas that were supposed to be included in the participants’ summaries were identified by three literature teachers using ten different criteria and the summaries were analyzed by two other judges based on these criteria. The findings indicated that there were significant differences in the majority of the writing indicators being measured with the tool. The findings indicated that collaborative-online reading and writing produce a summary of a higher quality than one read and hand written collaboratively face-to-face.     

Comparing Models of Change to Estimate the Mediated Effect in the Pretest–Posttest Control Group Design

Models to assess mediation in the pretest–posttest control group design are understudied in the behavioral sciences even though it is the design of choice for evaluating experimental manipulations. The article provides analytical comparisons of the four most commonly used models to estimate the mediated effect in this design: analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), difference score, residualized change score, and cross-sectional model. Each of these models is fitted using a latent change score specification and a simulation study assessed bias, Type I error, power, and confidence interval coverage of the four models. All but the ANCOVA model make stringent assumptions about the stability and cross-lagged relations of the mediator and outcome that might not be plausible in real-world applications. When these assumptions do not hold, Type I error and statistical power results suggest that only the ANCOVA model has good performance. The four models are applied to an empirical example.     

Avoiding Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials in Educational Research

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often seen as the 'gold standard' of evaluative research. However, whilst randomisation will ensure comparable groups, trials are still vulnerable to a range of biases that can undermine their internal validity. In this paper we describe a number of common threats to the internal validity of RCTs and methods of countering them. We highlight a number of examples from randomised trials in education and health care where problems of execution and analysis of the RCT has undermined their internal validity. However, awareness of these potential biases can lead to careful planning to avoid or reduce their occurrence. If good quality randomised trials are to inform policy and practice in education then rigorous trials need to be designed that are the least susceptible to threats to their validity.     

Successive reversals of a discriminated preference for signaled tailshock

Three rats received unmodifiable tailshock at random intervals in a shuttlebox. In a continuous-choice situation, Ss could choose between an auditory signal immediately preceding or immediately following the tailshock. Over repeated daily 3-h sessions, each S acquired a spatial discrimination indicating a strong preference for the signal preceding tailshock. This preference continued undiminished through two successive reversals of the position associated with signaled shock. This demonstration precludes explanations of the preference-for-signaled-shock phenomenon based upon primary reinforcement value or acquired value of the signal, position preferences, and overt modification of the aversiveness of the reinforcer through such means as postural adjustments. An explanation of recent failures to obtain the preference-for-signaled-shock effect is offered.     

Depth of processing and the quality of learning outcomes

Problems associated with earlier research on the relationship between depth of processing and quality of learning outcomes are first discussed. Then I present an interview study with 60 second year tertiary students which supports the hypothesis that depth of processing is related to the quality of learning outcomes.     

Secondary science teachers' knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification

This study examined the similarities and differences in experienced secondary science teachers' planning, teaching, and reflecting on their teaching, when teaching in their science area of certification and when teaching in another science area. The study also focused on the influence of these teachers' content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge on their planning, teaching, and reflecting. Experienced teachers were observed and interviewed while teaching classes in their science area of certification, and in another science area they were teaching for the first or second time. Both similarities and differences in teaching were found in the two areas for all three teachers. For example, their planning and postlesson reflections were similar in both areas. In the interactive phase of teaching more differences were observed. Many aspects of their teaching resembled that of expert teachers in other studies. In the unfamiliar science area, the teachers sometimes acted like novice teachers. However, they were able to draw upon their pedagogical knowledge to provide a framework for their teaching in both science areas. Their wealth of pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge for general science topics, seemed to sustain them in whatever content they were teaching. Recommendations for further study and implications for teacher education are discussed.