Since its integration into the European Higher Education Area, the Spanish educational system has evolved, introducing innovations into university teaching methodologies. This new approach entails the development of capacities, competencies, and skills that enable students to develop their critical thinking.
Objective
This work aims to present an innovation project conducted in a History of Psychology course, part of the Degree in Psychology in the Spanish university system.
Method
The current study was launched to evaluate the effectiveness of the Teaching Innovation Project, which itself arose from the need for students to improve their critical essay writing skills, incorporating such evidence-based methodologies as explicit instructions, online platforms, collaborative peer work, and rubrics.
Results
A comparison of outcomes among three cohorts showed a marked improvement in student performance on critical essays and final exam scores after implementing new methodologies.
Conclusion
It is possible to improve students’ critical essay writing skills in the context of the History of Psychology through the intentional implementation of evidence-based practices, changing the pedagogical focus from teacher-centered to student-centered.
Teaching implications
Psychology instructors who teach courses with writing skill development as a course goal could consider incorporating elements of the Teaching Innovation Project program.
BañalesG.VegaN. A. (2016). La enseñanza estratégica de la argumentación escrita en las disciplinas: desafíos para los docentes universitarios [The strategic teaching of written argumentation in the disciplines: challenges for university teachers.]. In BañalesG.CastellóM.VegaN. A. (Eds.), Enseñar a leer y escribir en la educación superior. Propuestas educativas basadas en la investigación [Teaching reading and writing in higher education. Research-based educational proposals] (pp. 101-127). Ediciones SM.
2.
BenitoA.CruzA. (2005). Nuevas claves para la docencia universitaria en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior [Keys to university teaching in the European Higher Education Area]. Narcea.
3.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The Psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
BrittM. A.RichterT.RouetJ.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217
5.
CastellóM.MateosM.CastellsN.IñestaA.CuevasI.SoléI. (2012). Academic writing practices in Spanish universities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10, 569-590. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v10i27.1517
6.
CorreaN.CeballosE.RodrigoM.J. (2003). El perspectivismo conceptual y la argumentación en los estudiantes universitarios [Conceptual perspectivism and argumentation in college students]. In MonereoC.PozoJ. I. (Eds.), La universidad ante la nueva cultura educativa [The university and the new educational culture] (pp. 63-77). Síntesis.
7.
Granado-PeinadoM.HuertasJ. A. (2021). A teaching innovation project on writing critical essays in the history of psychology course. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UF9JW/
8.
Granado-PeinadoM.MateosM.MartínE.CuevasI. (2019). Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2037-2058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6
9.
HaydenW. (1987). The content of the form. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2009). Energizing learning: the instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08330540
11.
KleinP. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psycgology Review, 11, 203-270.
LangerJ. A.ApplebeeA. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. National Council of Teachers of English.
14.
MateosM.MartínE.CuevasI.VillalónR.MartínezI.González-LamasJ. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36, 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300
15.
MauriT.ColominaR.ClaráM.GinestaA. (2011). Ayudas al aprendizaje en tareas de escritura colaborativa con Moodle [Learning aids for collaborative writing assignments with Moodle]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(25), 1103-1128.
16.
MolinaS.OrtuñoJ.MirallesP. (2011). El comentario de fuentes primarias como herramienta para la evaluación de competencias básicas en historia [The commentary of primary sources as a tool for the evaluation of basic competencies in history]. In Miralles MartínezP.Molina PucheS.Santisteban FernándezA. (Eds.), La evaluación en el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje de las ciencias sociales [Assessment in the teaching and learning process of social sciences] (pp. 221-232). AUPDCS.
17.
MonfortN.PagésJ.SantistebanA. (2011). ¿Cómo evaluar el pensamiento histórico del alumnado? [How to assess students' historical thinking?]. In Miralles MartínezP.Molina PucheS.Santisteban FernándezA. (Eds.), La evaluación en el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje de las ciencias sociales [Assessment in the teaching and learning process of social sciences] (pp. 221-232). AUPDCS.
18.
NewellG. E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.
19.
NykoppN.MarttunenM.LaurinenL. (2014). University students’ knowledge construction during face to face collaborative writing. In En KleinP.BoscoloP.KirkpatrickL.GelatiC. (Eds), Writing as a learning activity (pp. 277-299). Brill.
20.
PrichardJ.BizoL.StratfordR. (2006). The educational impact of teamskills training: Preparing students to work in groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24564
21.
RosaA.HuertasJ. A.BlancoF. (1998). Metodología para la Historia de la Psicología [Methodology for the history of psychology].Alianza.
22.
Segev-MillerR. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4, 5-33.
23.
Segev-MillerR. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In RijlarsdaamG.TorranceM.van WaesL.GalbraithD. (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing) (Vol. 20, pp. 231-250). Elsevier.
24.
SoléI.MateosM.MirasM.MartínE.CastellsN.CuevasI.GràciaM. (2005). Lectura, escritura y adquisición de conocimientos en Educación Secundaria y Educación Universitaria [reading, writing and knowledge acquisition in secondary and university education]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 28, 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1174/0210370054740241
25.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
26.
ThomasT. A. (2014). Developing team skills through a collaborative writing assignment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 479-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.850587
27.
TynjäläP. (2001). Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In TynjäläP.MasonL.LonkaK. (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 7-22). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
TynjäläP.MasonL.LonkaK. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: an introduction. In TynjäläP.MasonL.LonkaK. (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 7-22). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback?Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
