The purpose of this study is to assess the learning effect of a multilingual web-based argumentative writing instruction model called the Ensayo Científico Multilingüe (ECM, Multilingual Scientific Essay) adapting the didactic model called Genre-based Writing Instruction (GBWI) in an experiment conducted over three months. For this purpose, a quasi-experimental research model was applied to 150 students in the experimental group and 150 in the control group, with two measurements, pre and post-test, for three dependent variables: (a) writing metacognition and its dimensions; (b) written argumentative self-efficacy; and (c) rhetorical moves and steps of an argumentative essay. The latter variable was measured by the content analysis method. Variables (a) and (b) were both measured with instruments validated in a population of 518 university students using structural equations. The findings demonstrate the positive effect of the ECM, which combines WBWI and GBWI in argumentative written learning in the students’ mother tongue in all variables measured, applying statistics such as the Shapiro–Wilk statistic, parametric contrast, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In relation to the findings, with respect to the evaluated variables, it was discovered, specifically, that the rhetorical steps in which the students showed a significant improvement were innovations, quotes/research, definitions of concepts, refutations, definitive reasons, and bibliographical references. Likewise, the rhetorical steps that did not present significant differences following the application of the ECM were discovered, and they were: reason summary, formulation of premise, and reasons for. Furthermore, it can be stated that for the ECM there was an increase, above all, in awareness of the following metacognitive dimensions: (a) writing self-regulation; (b) writing planning; and (c) writing revision, as well as argumentative self-efficacy. The novelties of this research with respect to the precedents reside in that it offers valid and concrete results on the effect of a multilingual web design integrated into a well-defined didactic model of argumentative writing on writing metacognition and its dimensions, argumentative structuring and its rhetorical steps, and argumentative self-efficacy. The related studies consider only some of these variables, but not all of them together or their complexity. These results have allowed us to establish specific didactic–technological proposals for improving the ECM that are transferable to didactic designs to guide written argumentation at higher academic levels using multilingual web technologies and integrating the metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational dimensions of writing.

This study aims to evaluate the learning of writing competencies in a digital environment, also called “Escritura Argumentativa” (EA) (Argumentative Writing). For this purpose, a quasi-experimental design is deployed with an experimental group and a control group of 50 undergraduate students each. In this design, two repeated measurements, pre-test and post-test, are applied to three dependent variables: a) metacognition in writing, b) self-efficacy in argumentative writing, and c) structure of the argumentative text. Thus, it consists of a mixed design as validated questionnaires are selected for variables a and b, whereas variable c is described through the application of content analysis. The results indicate that the competencies developed in the use of digital resources, applications and tools, once integrated in the EA environment, significantly improve the writing competencies, which are taught when students use their native language (Spanish).

This study aims to enhance the quality of higher education by examining the impact of recontextualised practices within a microlearning system on students’ acquisition of scientific argumentative writing skills. Grounded in the Metasociocognitive Model of Written Composition and the process genre approach, a quasi-experimental design was applied with pre- and post-test measures on four variables: writer’s metasociocognition, argumentative self-efficacy, linguistic mechanisms, and argumentative structure. A control group and three experimental groups—individualised (PI), cooperative (PC), and intensive cooperative (PCOI)—were compared using micro-rubrics and statistical analyses (ANOVA, t-tests, Wilcoxon, and effect size). Results show that PCOI significantly improves metasociocognitive writing processes and text quality, not due to specific tools but to the recurrent, collaborative use of microlearning experiences. Additionally, PI and PCOI proved more effective in scientific argumentative structuring than other methodologies requiring more time and content. This research supports the incorporation of intelligent tutoring in the microlearning system.

No hay una descripción disponible de la editorial