Akademsko pisanje pri poučevanju raziskovalne integritete
Povzetek
Glavni cilj prispevka je predstaviti ključne elemente, ki so značilni za oblikovanje spletnih tečajev, vključno s procesi oblikovanja, izvajanja in vrednotenja spletnega tečaja za študente dodiplomskega študija, ki se osredinja na razvijanje veščin akademskega pisanja. Te spretnosti so za univerzitetne študente bistvenega pomena, ker zagotavljajo znanje, potrebno za učinkovito izražanje, analizo besedil, kritično razmišljanje, pravilno citiranje in preprečevanje plagiatorstva. Akademsko pisanje je tudi temelj za odgovorno raziskovalno prakso. Model kompetenčnega profila raziskovalne integritete, ki vključuje štiri glavna področja, tj.: vrednote in načela, raziskovalno prakso, objavljanje in diseminacijo ter kršitve, je bil oblikovan pred zasnovo tečaja, pri čemer so bile definirane spretnosti, ki jih morajo študentje pridobiti na dodiplomski ravni za uspešno akademsko pisanje. Leta 2020 je bil skrbno zasnovan manjši zasebni spletni tečaj. Sestavljen je bil iz različnih nalog, vključno z interaktivnimi dejavnostmi, kot so: kvizi, videoposnetki in delo v mednarodnih interdisciplinarnih skupinah. Tečaja se je udeležilo 36 študentov iz Slovenije, Nizozemske in iz Češke. Trajal je štiri tedne in je med drugim obravnaval teme, kot so: analiza literature, pisanje raziskovalnega prispevka, izogibanje plagiatorstvu, parafraziranje in slogi citiranja. Tečaj se je začel izvajati leta 2021 v dveh zaporednih časovnih obdobjih. Sodelujoči študentje so tečaj ocenili pozitivno ter naloge opisali kot motivirajoče, uporabne in dobro strukturirane. Ugotovili so tudi, da na tem področju potrebujejo več prakse, zato predlagamo, da se vzpostavi univerzitetni predmet, ki bi vsem študentom zagotovil potrebne veščine akademskega pisanja.Prenosi
Literatura
Amiti, F. (2020). Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, 5(2), 60–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3313
Borg, E. (2000). Citation practices in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 26–42). Centre for Applied Language Studies.
Bui, S. (2022, February 13). What makes the completion rates of your online courses so low and how to improve them? E-Learning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/what-makes-the-completion-rates-of-online-courses-so-low-andhow-improve-it
Camacho, N., Nam, H., Kannan, P. K., & Stremersch, S. (2019). Tournaments to crowdsource innovation: The role of moderator feedback and participation intensity. Journal of Marketing, 83(2), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242918809673
Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00154
Castrillo, M. D. (2014). Language Teaching in MOOCs: The integral role of the instructor. In E. Martin-Monje & E. Barcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries (pp. 69–92). De Gruyter Open.
Celik, S. (2020). Building critical academic writing skills: The impact of instructor feedback on Turkish ELT graduate students. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 24(3), 1–18.
Chokwe, J. M. (2013). Factors impacting academic writing skills of English second language students. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p377
Compton, L. K. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220802613831
Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314–325.
David, D. R., & Anderson, C. E. (2022). The universal genre sphere: A curricular model integrating GBA and UDL to promote equitable academic writing instruction for EAL university students. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal 12(4), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1442
Elevate Online Academy (n.d.). ElevateHealth. https://elevatehealth.eu/
Gielen, G. (2016). Advantages and disadvantages of SPOCS: Experiences with online teaching. In Teixeira, A. M. (Ed.), European Distance and E-Learning Network Annual Conference: Re-imagining Learning Environments (pp. 105–111). European Distance and E-Learning Network.
Giossos, Y., Koutsouba, M., Lionarakis, A., & Skavantzos, K. (2009). Reconsidering Moore's Transactional Distance Theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 2009(2), 1–6. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ911768.pdf
Gradišek, P. (2012). Character strengths and life satisfaction of Slovenian in-service and pre-service 152 academic writing in teaching research integrity teachers. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal 2(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.379
Guo, P. (2017). MOOC and SPOC, which one is better? EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education 13(8), 5961–5967. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01044a
Hampel, R. & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., Sudweeks, R. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2013). Academic performance, course completion rates, and student perception of the quality and frequency of interaction in a virtual high school. Distance Education, 34(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770430
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2018). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students academic writing: a meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI]. (2021). The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity (3rd ed.). www.academicintegrity.org/the-fundamental-valuesof-academic-integrity
Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students' perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000190778
Kim, S., & Kim, D.J. (2021). Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning. Sustainability, 13, 6734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126734
Kreie, J., Johnson, S., & Lebsock, M. (2017). Course design and technology for synchronous interaction in an online course. Information Systems Educational Journal, 15(5), 60–67.
Lander, J. (2015). Building community in online discussion: A case study of moderator strategies. Linguistics and Education, 29, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.08.007
MacArthur, C. A. & Graham, S. (2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.) (pp. 24–40). The Guilford Press.
MarylandOnline Inc. (2011). Quality matters rubric standards 2011-2013 edition with assigned point values. https://www.qualitymatters.org/rubric
Nguyen, T. (2015). The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No Significant Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11, 309–319.
Ozcan-Deniz, G. (2018). Accommodating independent study courses in the virtual world. [Paper presentation]. 2nd Scholarship of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Conference, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17926.27200
Pretz, K. (2014). Low completion rates for MOOCs. The Institute. http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/opinions/ieee-roundup-low-completion-rates-for-moocs
Ramadhanti, D., Ghazali, A. S., Hasanah, M., & Harsiati, T. (2019). Students' metacognitive weaknesses in academic writing: A preliminary research. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(11), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i11.10213
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.
Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H., & Dolmans, D. (2018). A review of educational dialogue strategies to improve academic writing skills. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418810663
Selan, J., Metljak, M., Berčnik, S., & Dagarin Fojkar, M. (2021). Competency Profile for Teaching and Learning Research Integrity. Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani.
Sewell, J.P., Frith, K.H., & Colvin, M. (2010). Online assessment strategies: A primer. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 297–305.
Smith, S. (2022, July 24). Academic writing. EAP Foundation. https://www.eapfoundation.com/writing/what/
Soffer, T. & Cohen, A. (2019). Students' engagement characteristics predict success and completion of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(304), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12340
Song, D., Rice, M., & Oh, E. Y. (2019). Participation in online courses and interaction with a virtual agent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i1.3998
Sultan, N. (2013). British students' academic writing: Can academia help improve the writing skills of tomorrow's professionals? Industry and Higher Education, 27(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0145
Trentin G. (2001). Designing Online Courses. In C.D. Maddux & D. Lamont Johnson (Eds.), The web in higher education: Assessing the impact and fulfilling the potential (pp. 47–66). The Haworth Press Inc.
Trzeciak, J., & Mackay, S.E. (1994). Study skills for academic writing. Prentice Hall.
Xi, L., & Li, G. (2020). Students' sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous and asynchronous online courses. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 169–179.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
