Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?

There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on learning and transfer of CT-skills, focusing on avoiding biased reasoning. Students (N = 170) received instructions on CT and avoiding biases in reasoning tasks, followed by: (1) contrasting examples, (2) correct examples, (3) erroneous examples, or (4) practice problems. Performance was measured on a pretest, immediate posttest, 3-week delayed posttest, and 9-month delayed posttest. Our results revealed that participants’ reasoning task performance improved from pretest to immediate posttest, and even further after a delay (i.e., they learned to avoid biased reasoning). Surprisingly, there were no differences in learning gains or transfer performance between the four conditions. Our findings raise questions about the preconditions of contrasting examples effects. Moreover, how transfer of CT-skills can be fostered remains an important issue for future research.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE EUPHONOMY RULES IN MODERN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE OF THE HUMANITARIAN PROFILE

The article emphasizes the problem of observance of the current orthographic norms concerning the positional alternation of vowels and consonants �� and �� in order to achieve euphony in Ukrainian language. The purpose of the article is to analyze the implementation of the norms of the current Ukrainian orthography regarding to the positional alternation of �� and �� in the modern scientific literature of the humanitarian profile. The method of continuous selection is used in the work, as well as comparative, structural (descriptive) methods and prescriptive-descriptive analysis. The material for the study are scientific articles published in the �Humanities bulletin of Zaporizhzhe state engineering academy. 2019. � 77�. By the method of continuous selection from this edition, 509 examples of the use of the prepositionprefix �� and ��(euphonem) have been isolated. Only 328 examples turned out to correspond to the current norms and 181, which are 35.6%, turned out to be erroneous. The presence of such a significant number of errors in the application confirms the need to thoroughly analyze the conditions of noncompliance with the current norms and the grounds that could have contributed to this situation. Based on chosen material it is stated that consistent observance of norm of use �� in a position between two vowels. At the same time, the highest percentage of violations of normativeness was recorded �in the position after the vowel before the consonant� � 109 examples, which is more than 60% of all erroneous examples, and in the models �at the beginning of the phrase (after the punctuation mark) before the consonant� � 47 examples (25.9%) and �in between two consonants� � 20 examples (11%). A detailed analysis of erroneous euphonems in comparison with normative ones has revealed that most cases of noncompliance with the current norm should not be interpreted as gross violations, but can be justified by certain objective circumstances. The main reasons for non-compliance with the formal rules of positional alternation �� and �� are revealed. They are pronunciation in certain positions of the y-infinitive, the presence of intonation pauses, use in uncomplicated combinations with sonorous sound, in particular with middle-language etc. There is a much higher frequency of errors in prepositional constructions compared to prefixal ones, which may be evidence of a certain trend. The predominance of phonetic preconditions for non-compliance with the norms against the background of a large percentage of erroneous models give the reason to doubt the sufficient balance and thoughtfulness of the current spelling regarding the norms of positional alternations of vowels and consonants. Some recommendations are proposed to improve the current spelling in order to further correct this situation. In particular, the peculiarities of articulation �� and �� (positional pronunciation of the y-infinitive), the peculiarities of intonation in specific segments of speech give grounds not to require speakers to use a vowel or consonant: the choice should be influenced not only by formal sound environment but also by melody phrases, intonation, preferences and language habits of the author, etc.

Refuting misconceptions: Computer tutors for fraction arithmetic

Fractions, known to be difficult for both children and adults, are especially prone to misconceptions and erroneous strategy selection. The present study investigated whether a computer tutor improves fraction arithmetic performance in adults and if supplementing problem solving with erroneous examples is more beneficial than problem solving alone. Seventy-five undergraduates solved fraction arithmetic problems using a computer tutoring system we designed. In a between-subjects design, 39 participants worked with a problem-solving tutor that was supplemented with erroneous examples and 36 participants worked with a traditional problem-solving tutor. Both tutors provided hints and feedback. Overall, participants improved after the tutoring interventions, but there were no significant differences in gains made by the two conditions. For students with low prior knowledge about fraction arithmetic, the numerical gains were higher in the erroneous-example group than the problem-solving group, but this effect was not significant. Thus, computer tutors are useful tools for improving fraction knowledge. While erroneous examples may be particularly beneficial for students with low prior knowledge who may hold more misconceptions, more research is needed to make this conclusion.

Learning to argue from others' erroneous arguments - Fostering argumentation competence through learning from advocatory errors

Argumentation competence is a major skill to be acquired in university education. However, there is a lack of advanced argumentation competence even for graduate students. To foster argumentation competence, typical interventions focus on example-based learning. Another approach is learning from advocatory errors. The combination of both approaches is presenting examples of erroneous arguments. Drawing on the concept of case-based learning, we developed a learning intervention that presents examples of argumentation errors in a story-based designs, i.e., the erroneous examples are embedded in a story featuring the argumentation between two persons in an authentic setting. In this contribution, we report results of two studies. In a pilot study, we compared an experimental condition receiving a story-based learning intervention with a control condition without a learning intervention. W found that learning from advocatory errors in a story-based design indeed fosters students’ argumentation competence. In a main study, we compared two forms of instructional support (elaboration vs. testing prompts) against a control condition without instructional support. There was a significant increase of argumentation competence in both conditions with instructional support but not in the control condition. The results also support the cautious conclusion that elaboration prompts seem to be more effective than testing prompts. Overall, the results from both studies indicate that the story-based design is apt to foster students’ argumentation competence. We also considered the impact of prior argumentation competence and found in both studies that the present level of argumentation competence is factor determining the argumentation competence after learning.