FMSERA Journal

Analysing argumentation episodes

Maija Nousiainen — 2024-12-20

We discuss here how domain-specific argumentation and skills related to it can form part of learning science in higher education. In this study, we analyse pre-service physics teachers written reports (N=36). We introduce here four argumentative elements and propose how they can be used to analyse physics knowledge argumentation. The analysis allows us to detect how pre-service teachers combine argumentative elements in their explanations and consider what is the logical order of the appearance of argumentation episodes. Results show that the analysis method based on argumentative episodes reveal relevant differences in pre-service physics teachers’ argumentation and its structure. We conclude by discussing how explicit teaching of argument construction may help pre-service teachers to improve their abilities to construct logical arguments.

Finnish Pre-Service Teachers' Basic Mathematical Skills

Aida Ohtonen Piuva — 2024-12-20

This study examined how first-year primary school teacher students at Åbo Akademi University in Vaasa, Finland, performed in a basic mathematics test, through a comparison between the years 2008 and 2020. By comparing the results of the mathematics tests from the two time points, it was possible to identify significant differences in basic mathematical skills demonstrated by the prospective teachers. The results were tested for significance, which showed that the grand total means of the mathematics test, and the task-specific means, had all declined. Furthermore, the test score distributions were compared. The results showed that the portion of students with high scores had decreased, and the portion with low scores had increased, a change that agrees with previous reports on the development of Finnish students’ mathematical skills.

Mekaniikan kurssikoevastausten analysointia Toulmin-perustaisella argumentaatiomallilla

Mikko Kesonen — 2024-12-20

Tässä tutkimuksessa analysoidaan mekaniikan kurssikoevastauksia Toulmin-perustaisella argumenttimallilla. Tavoitteena on tunnistaa koevastausten rakenne argumentin rakenteeseen verrattuna ja selvittää vastausrakenteen ja vastausten oikeelli- suuden välistä yhteyttä. Tutkimusaineisto on kerätty yliopiston perusopintotason mekaniikan kurssikokeesta (N=45). Tulosten mukaan 74% vastauksista sisältää argumentin rakenteen keskeiset, eli väitteen, viittauksen aineistoon ja päättelyn kuvauksen riippumatta vastauksen oikeellisuudesta. Nämä rakenteellisesti kattavat vastaukset välittivät opiskelijoiden osaamisesta selvemmän ja eheämmän kuvan kuin rakenteen kannalta puutteelliset vastaukset. Argumenttiin rinnastettavan rakenteen huomioiminen tehtävävastausten arvioinnissa voi edistää ajattelun kielentämistä osana asiantuntijuuteen kasvamisessa.

Vector Misconceptions in Finnish Matriculation Examination

Heli Virtanen — 2024-12-20

We used a large data set to discover what kind of misconceptions Finnish secondary school students have in elementary vector calculations. The study was based on a data set from the spring 2020 advanced mathematics exam in the Finnish matriculation examination. The data set consisted of answers from 13,284 students who participated in the exam. We focused on a question about vectors and compared the results to another question about equations and inequalities. We analyzed and classified the answers and explain common misconceptions the students had in the exam. Certain typical mistakes included not understanding that the result of a dot product is a scalar, and not a vector, or not understanding the notation for the norm of a vector.

Talking Chemistry in Small Groups

Gunilla Renvall — 2024-12-20

The aim of this study is to explore how 8th grade students express their chemistry knowledge in small group discussions. We conduct a fine-grained qualitative analysis of the discussions to identify challenges concerning the different levels of representations in chemistry. Data was collected in 2018-2019 in Finland within a teacher’s developmental project. We found that the students’ discussions were often situated in one of the levels of chemistry, macroscopic, submicroscopic, or symbolic, and the students showed difficulties linking the different levels to find explanations. By supporting the students with artefacts, such as pictures that linked the levels, we saw indications of how students’ discussions on multiple levels could be promoted.

Preface

Ann-Sofi Röj-Lindberg — 2024-12-20