This study examines how students in Finland (16-18 years of age) constructed meaning and knowledge in a collaborative online reading situation. Student pairs (n = 19) were asked to write a joint essay on a controversial issue. First, the pairs discussed the topic freely in order to activate their prior knowledge. Next, they gathered source material on the Internet. Finally, they composed a joint essay. The data were collected using an interaction approach to verbal protocol data, along with video screen captures. In the analysis, three units were employed: episodes (n = 562), for describing online reading practices; utterances (n = 944), for identifying collaborative reading strategies; and collaborative reading patterns (n = 435) for clarifying how the student pairs constructed meaning and knowledge. Collaborative reading patterns were categorized according to a four-part model. A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify students' collaborative reading profiles. Five collaborative reading profiles emerged: co-constructers (2 pairs); collaborators (2 pairs); blenders (6 pairs); individually oriented readers (4 pairs); and silent readers (5 pairs). Overall, it appeared that some students were capable of working as pairs whereas others had a stronger preference for working alone. Collaborative profiles might offer teachers both an evaluative and an instructional tool to support collaborative interaction in their classrooms.

The Internet is a significant information resource for students due to the ease of access it allows to a vast amount of information. As the quality of the information on the Internet varies, it is important that students are able to evaluate such information critically. The aim of the study was to investigate how students evaluate Internet sources in an authentic learning task. Upper secondary school students (n = 25) were asked to look for source material on the Internet in order to write an essay. They were asked to verbalize their thoughts during the material gathering process. Their verbalizations and actions on the Internet were recorded and analyzed. The five evaluation profiles emerged: 1) versatile evaluators; 2) relevance-orientated evaluators; 3) limited evaluators; 4) disorientated readers; and 5) uncritical readers.

Argumentation skills of secondary school students were evaluated in Finland (n = 290), France (n = 54), and England (n = 41). The data were collected from 4 tasks comprising 7 variables. The results indicated that most of the students had correctly justified arguments and conclusions, and composed clear claims and relevant arguments. However, many students had difficulties in recognising the main claim and arguments for it in an expository text, and in commenting analytically on an argumentative text. Thus the students possessed the prerequisites for argumentative reasoning and writing but need further practice in analytical and critical reading.

No abstract

No abstract