texts and the way of working with texts

RESEARCH
TEXTS AND THE WAY OF WORKING WITH TEXTS
Their Impact on Second-graders’ Learning
GUADALUPE MARES / ELENA RUEDA / OLGA RIVAS / HÉCTOR ROCHA / EDUARDO FLORES / PATRICIA
DÁVILA E IGNACIO PEÑALOSA
Guadalupe Mares is a head professor in charge of the line of research on teaching and learning literacy and the natural
sciences, at Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala-UNAM. Avenida de los Barrios número 1, Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla,
Estado de México, 54090. EMAIL: [email protected]
Elena Rueda, Olga Rivas, Héctor Rocha, Patricia Dávila and Ignacio Peñalosa are professors at Facultad de Estudios
Superiores-Iztacala-UNAM. Eduardo Flores was a scholarship recipient on the project, a graduate of FES-Iztacala-UNAM.
Abstract:
This article describes the evaluation of second-graders’ linguistic skills in biology, and the comparison of execution
involving two types of texts: one prepared by the Secretary of Public Education ( SEP)—and its teaching strategy—
and another modified text associated with two strategies derived from interbehavioral psychology. The
participants were thirty-six children assigned to three groups: G1, SEP text and official strategy; G2, modified text
and integration of skill; and G3, modified text and promotion of deductions. A pretest-intervention-posttest
design was used with the three groups; the results indicate that significant differences between the two evaluations
were found only in G3. On comparing the three groups, only G3 surpassed G1 in a significant manner. The
progress in skills by concept is analyzed in terms of possible relations with the texts and the strategies employed in
each group.
Keywords: evaluation of texts, reading, strategies, teaching biology, basic education, Mexico.
Introduction
The books designed by the Secretariat of Public Education ( SEP) for elementary school teaching are the
main support that Mexico provides to all students in their education. Teachers do their work by
following the books, which guide the particular content to be taught, as well as the activities and
exercises that teachers will put into practice. However, before 2006 (López y Mota, 2003 and 2006),
very few articles about these books had been published (Mares, Rivas, Pacheco, Rocha, Dávila,
Peñalosa y Rueda, 2006; Vargas, 2001).
This year, various reports on the characteristics of natural science books in elementary school
(López-Manjon y Postigo, 2008; Varela, 2008) revealed certain problems relative to their psychopedagogical design. Proposals were also published to improve the design of these books (Gallegos y
Flores, 2008; Mares, 2008; Salas, 2008). However, it is difficult to find studies that evaluate the
efficiency of proposals for improving design as directly related to student learning.
The research reported in this document is in the field of the design and evaluation of instructional
books with regard to the associated forms of work. From our perspective, and especially in the case of
children beginning to master written language in a school context, the way the child interacts with the
text is guided by the teacher and implied in the design itself. Thus a text’s design can alter the way a
teacher guides young readers’ approach to the written word by including a series of activities during or
after reading; the exercises contained in the text are an example. For this reason, the consideration of
academic activities that are promoted with texts in classrooms becomes relevant. The current study
carries out a modification of the psycho-pedagogical design of a lesson in a natural science book, whose
reading is guided by psychologists; an evaluation is made of its efficiency in terms of the learning of
second-grade students.
To justify this work and put it into perspective, we shall begin with a brief review of studies that
analyze the psycho-pedagogical characteristics of natural science textbooks, continuing on with the
characteristics that describe the textbooks’ use in class. Lastly, we shall briefly present the theoretical
framework that orients the research. This section also includes the guidelines for textbook design and a
generic description for their handling.
Psycho-pedagogical Characteristics of Natural Science Books
The psycho-pedagogical characteristics of texts refer to the analysis of their aspects based on criteria
relative to teaching and learning. It is possible to analyze their content, the type of structure, fine
design, function of images, and activities. The research that reviewed images includes the study by
López-Manjón and Postigo (2008), who examined the images used in units about the human body, in
natural science books from the third to the sixth grade. After a careful analysis of the type of graphic
resources employed (photographs, diagrams, drawings, and quantitative graphics) as well as the signs
and titles accompanying them and their relation to the text, these authors point out that: a) Throughout
the courses, no clear criteria seem to exist to guide the selection and sequence of the included images,
because one type of representation follows another without consideration for the possible degree of
difficulty; and b) The images are presented as if they were “self-explanatory” because they are not
accompanied by descriptive headings or titles. In addition, the text does not establish an explicit link
with the images.
Another study that examines images was carried out by Varela (2008). This author analyzed the
sections dedicated to the teaching of physical geography in natural science and geography books. The
study indicates that: a) If teachers have the same contents in geography and natural science books, they
will pay attention to only one of them and not utilize the opportunity to interact with the contents of
two different forms; b) In general, no explicit reference is made to the illustrations, nor is the specific
site of photographs indicated; c) Although maps and graphs are prepared, their frequency is so low that
meaningful learning is difficult to expect; d) The practical sections have a predominance of questions
whose answers require only the repetition of knowledge presented in the lesson; and e) The activities
included in the sections relative to the evaluation of learning become study guides for examinations,
which generally cover only the periodical evaluation of memorized content.
This same group of work includes the study done by Mares, Rivas, Pacheco, Rocha, Dávila,
Peñalosa and Rueda (2006), who analyzed if the images, the demands of the activity, and the structure
used in teaching biology, as presented in the books from third to sixth grade, promote reading
comprehension and the transfer of learning. The authors concluded that: a) The way of organizing
contents does not facilitate comprehension and does not constitute an optimal model of writing and
thinking for children; b) Practically none of the images presented requires students to interact with the
images, a circumstance that obstructs the transfer of learning (application of knowledge); c) Few
opportunities are available for children to develop the ability to make inferences; and d) Few
opportunities exist for the development and integration of observational, operational, and linguistic
skills, thus decreasing the probability of transferring learning.
The results of the above-mentioned research report on the psycho-pedagogical problems found in
various areas of natural science textbooks, especially: a) the lack of criteria for organizing images
throughout courses; b) the irrelevant use of images, activity requirements, and lesson organization for
facilitating learning and the transfer of learning to other scenarios; c) the absence of headings and titles
to describe images, as well as references in texts; d) the absence of opportunities to develop the ability
to infer and anticipate; e) the predominance, in the practical sections, of questions requiring only the
repetition of knowledge expressed in the lesson; and f) the lack of opportunities to practice making
maps and graphs.
Using Textbooks During Class
To address teachers’ handling of a topic or lesson, we shall review certain data. Mares, Guevara, Rueda,
Rivas and Rocha (2004) observed nine natural science classes in the second, fourth, and sixth grades of
elementary school. They reported that the teachers in the observed groups organized activities that
maintained the children’s attention and participation, that they treated the children in a cordial and
respectful manner, and that they used support materials; however, most of the time, the teachers asked
questions and organized activities in which the children acted as listeners and repeaters of information.
The most frequent activities that the teachers carry out with textbooks include reading texts aloud,
explaining or writing the most relevant parts of the content on the blackboard, and asking the children
to read paragraphs, formulate questions about the previously read content, and complete exercises.
Similar results are reported for Spanish classes. Guevara, Mares, Rueda, Rivas, Sánchez and Rocha
(2005), upon observing a class in three second-grade groups, three fourth-grade groups, and three sixthgrade groups, frequently found that the teachers organized activities by alternating reading or the
explanation of a part of the lesson, with a series of questions with a double aim: to have the children
answer questions related to the content of narrative, and to reinforce grammatical learning. In only two
of the nine groups were activities observed that related experience to the topic at hand, that involved
having the children write summaries in their own words, deduce content based on titles, subtitles, and
images, or prepare various types of text by adapting to defined formats (such as letters, telegrams, or
stories).
In terms of linguistic skills, the activities teachers do with their students are focused basically on the
description of what was read in the text. Children of this age are not encouraged to come into contact
with objects of knowledge from other school subjects, nor are they permitted to apply knowledge to
different topics or situations; neither study reported the effects on learning or the transfer of learning to
other situations. Proposed alternatives for directing and managing classes are not evaluated. Further
progress will be required in these two aspects.
An aspect that provides information on teachers’ use of books to guide teaching refers to the
conceptual mastery of the addressed topics. Méndez, Paz and Martínez (2005) diagnosed, through a
questionnaire, the level of 613 professors’ and 12,260 students’ basic knowledge of biology in Estado
de México and Mexico City. The questionnaire included open-ended questions on the central concepts
of biology (living things, plants, animals, the environment, the food chain, respiration, biodiversity,
cells, the ecosystem, and evolution), according to the official program. The general average obtained by
the professors was 51.3%, and 36.5% by the students. Similar results were obtained by Paz (1999 and
2000).
The following indications can be made with regard to the use of textbooks during class: a) The
teachers use the textbook in an extensive, varied form; b) Class activities frequently involve reading or
explaining part of the lesson, accompanied by questions that require a new elaboration or repetition of
what was read, written on the blackboard, or heard; and c) Teachers do not receive specialized training
in the teaching of particular disciplines, nor do they have a mastery of their central concepts.
Considering the psycho-pedagogical problems of textbooks and practices oriented toward the
repetition of content, it is possible to believe that modifying the design of books will change their use
during class, and that as a consequence, they will influence student learning and the transfer of learning.
Presented in brief form below is the conceptual framework that guides the research. A summary is
given of the aspects directly linked to the study.
Conceptual Framework
The proposal that guides the design of the natural sciences text is based on an interbehavioral
perspective of the field (Kantor, 1959; Kantor y Smith, 1975; Mares, 2001; Ribes y López, 1985), which
permits contact with adjacent disciplines and with the empirical data generated on the topic. The
theoretical consideration is that all of the factors are interrelated; thus the modification of one factor
alters the others and their relation. As we aim at the central objective of the research, we shall focus on
the factors that affect learning and the transfer of learning in the second-grade classroom.
From this perspective, another consideration is that the skills children develop in the classroom are
the product of interactions established with the objects of knowledge 1 mediated by textbooks, teacher
discourse, and instructional materials. In these interactions, teachers play the most important role
because they mediate and promote student contact with objects of knowledge and guide children
through what they are told or asked; teachers are also important in the way they use texts and relate to
the group and each individual child, thus encouraging the development of skills related to learning in a
discipline (Mares y Guevara, 2004).
Teachers are faced by the challenge of promoting the progress of twenty, thirty, or forty children
with varying educational levels, extra-scholastic support, and interests. However, the diversity
agglutinated by the institutional objective and delimited by similarities in family, biology, and academic
and linguistic skills, creates the possibility of organizing tasks and activities that permit the progress of
each involved child.
With analytical purposes, the skills that students learn are divided into observational, manipulative,
and linguistic (Mares, 2001). Observational skills refer to those that enable the detection of sequences,
transformations, and dependent relations with objects, organisms, and events. Linguistic skills, linked
with observational skills, refer to naming and describing objects, organisms, sequences,
transformations, and dependent relations among them, while articulating through a conceptual system
and mastering linguistic systems oriented to analyzing aspects that associate the group of objects and
events. Manipulative and procedural skills, with varying degrees of elaboration, enable the handling of
the objects of study and the preparations for their observation.
Relational linguistic skills (verbal knowledge) that are integrated into observational or manipulative
skills—linked to the same group of objects and events and also unlinked from irrelevant situational
circumstances—are transferred toward groups of objects that are related in the same way. Such skills
that are not integrated into observational or operative skills—linked to the same group of objects and
events—are transferred with great difficulty. They remain in the sphere of discourse.
Some of the conditions that favor the functional integration of skills (observational, operative, and
linguistic) linked to the same group of events, as well as their detachment 2 from irrelevant situational
factors are:
1) Contact with relational linguistic expression and with events or their substitutes, at proximate
times. Such quasi simultaneous contact should be understood as a coming and going of
interaction with objects that are related or transform the interaction with relational linguistic
expression, in such a way that pertinent events are elaborated as a relation (Mares, Rivas y Bazán,
2001; Mares, Guevara y Rueda, 1996; Mares, 2000).
2) The asking of questions that go beyond what is explicitly contained in linguistic elaborations
(texts or the teacher’s discourses) prevents the child’s interaction from being strictly
circumscribed by linguistics, and also promotes interaction with expressions that are constructed
on observation and relations (Mares, Rivas y Bazán, 2001; Mares, Guevara y Rueda, 1996; Mares,
2000).
3) The introduction of a 24-hour delay between contact with the events or their substitutes and
contact with relational expressions.
Studies that analyzed the possibility of second-graders’ transfer of verbal knowledge learned by reading
very simple texts (Mares, Guevara y Rueda, 1996; Mares, Ribes y Rueda, 1990) came to the following
conclusions:
1) Relational expressions (verbal knowledge) learned by second-graders through reading will not
easily transfer to speaking or writing about similar events.
2) The transfer of learning through reading—in the second grade—is attained only when activities
are organized that involve the use of substitutes (images that represent events) and that permit
coming into contact with the event’s characteristics, so that children interact in alternate form
with the text and drawings, and do tasks that imply describing the relations expressed graphically
and drawing the relations expressed linguistically.
Based on the above, the design of instructional procedures and materials that participate in these
procedures is centered on two questions:
1) Do they promote the development and integration of observational, operative, and linguistic
skills relative to the same group of events?
2) Do they favor the detachment of skills with respect to irrelevant situational circumstances?
In particular, with reference to textbooks, the question is if the distinct elements that characterize a
text—images, questions, activities or exercises, structure, coherence, titles, subtitles, etc.—contribute to
the readers’ learning and integration of diverse skills linked to the same group of objects and events and
if they detach (untie, release, free) these skills from irrelevant concrete circumstances.
Guidelines for Textbook Design
This section presents the guidelines for modifying a text originally designed by SEP. The justification of
the proposal is developed in Mares et al., 2006 and Mares, 2008. These guidelines are derived from the
described theoretical framework as well as the research completed by Mares et al. (2006) and are
organized into four aspects: structure, content, images and activities promoted.
Structure of text. The aspects of text design and structure require full articulation with objectives and
the students’ skill level. The following proposals are made with respect to this point: a) to indicate in an
explicit manner the purpose of the lesson; b) to establish explicit links with previous lessons and to
review relevant topics; c) to organize paragraphs based on the specified purpose and not through a
topic; and d) to employ different types of marks to emphasize the central contents of the text.
Images. Images incorporated into texts, like contents, must follow the objective and the child’s level.
The specific proposal is: a) to establish an explicit link between the text and image, and b) to ask the
children to carry out activities with the images—to complete, describe, compare, correct, and draw, in
order to attain contact with the content of the text.
Questions, instructions, and exercises. These elements constitute the formative part of the text because
they impel and direct interactions with the objects of knowledge; what the child learns, mediated by the
text, depends on the demands of the activity that are included in the text or provided by the teacher.
The proposal is to introduce questions and/or exercises after each paragraph where a concept is
presented. For each concept, questions and exercises are aimed at having the children: a) exercise the
linguistic expressions of the scientific language they are learning; b) integrate these expressions into their
concrete referents (events, transformations, relations, and sequences); c) apply expressions to concrete
events with which they have had contact; d) exercise the relations of scientific language; e) make
inferences based on the concepts and relations implied in the system’s logic; and f) elaborate
explanations of concrete events based on the knowledge learned.
Contents. Contents must be analyzed by specialists in the science being taught, in development,
teaching, and learning. These specialists would have the function of analyzing the correspondence
between the information in the text and the discipline, of re-elaborating the scientific concepts to make
them accessible to children without modifying their central notion, of apportioning the number of
concepts, and organizing their presentation according to the level of development and the
characteristics of the conceptual system.
Use of Textbooks
This study attempts to prove the effectiveness of the modified version of the SEP text, based on the
above-mentioned guidelines and compared with the original text. In addition, taking into consideration
that for the moment no proven instructional procedure is available to promote the transfer of
knowledge among second-graders, the study analyzed the inclusion of two ways of working with
modified text, in order to determine which way was more effective for learning and the transfer of
learning at this grade level. The use known as integration is oriented to strengthening the union
between: a) the conceptual system of biology, and b) children’s previous contacts with objects and
events relative to the area of knowledge and the use known as “deduction”, which is oriented to
supporting children in making hypotheses based on the conceptual system, while moving away from
projections and deductions supported by their desires or particular contacts. Both ways of using texts
have the following criteria in common:
1) The children read each paragraph three times before answering the exercises related to the
concept at hand.
2) The children read the instructions or questions aloud, and are asked to raise their hand to give
the answer. All children who raise their hand are allowed to participate. If the answers are correct
they are asked to answer in the text. If the answers are not correct, they are asked to read the text
again to find the correct answer. The answers written in the texts are supervised.
3) Feedback is given on the activity, stimulating children’s relevant participation.
4) The development of linguistic skills related to scientific language must be taught in the same
session when the children enter into direct or substitute contact with the objects, organisms, or
events studied by the discipline.
5) Instigation of relevant skills.
The consideration of the limitations observed in the textbooks, the type of contacts with the
educational contents provided in the classroom, the lack of specialized teacher training in the discipline
taught, and the existence of a book for each student, could alter the texts with the end of attaining,
under the teacher’s direction, the children’s development of linguistic skills integrated into
observational skills relative to the same group of events and detached from irrelevant situational
factors.
General Objective
To evaluate and compare the effect of the SEP text and a modified text, with the respective ways of
working with them, on the children’s development of linguistic skills in biology.
Specific Objectives
1) To evaluate the effectiveness of the original SEP text, with regular use, on the development of
linguistic skills related to biology.
2) To evaluate the effectiveness of a modified text, with the use known as integration, on the
development of linguistic skills related to biology.
3) To evaluate the effectiveness of a modified text, with the use known as deduction, on the
development of linguistic skills related to biology.
4) To analyze the specific linguistic skills that show differences.
5) To compare the SEP text and the usual way of working in class, versus the modified text and the
form of work called integration.
6) To compare the SEP text and the usual form of working in class, with the modified text and the
form of work called deduction.
7) Based on the results, to improve the modified text and the way of using it.
Method
Study Design
The study design included three equivalent groups with a pre- and post-evaluation (Hernández,
Fernández y Baptista 2003).
Participants
The participants were thirty-six children attending the morning-shift second grade at a public
elementary school in the municipality of Tlalnepantla, Estado de México. The children’s ages when the
study began ranged between seven years two months and eight years two months. No child had
repeated a grade or had been reported as having special needs. Annex 1 shows the sex and age of each
child. Three participating psychologists served the function as teacher of the groups: two specialists in
biology who analyzed the text content, and one psychology graduate who supported their work.
Three equivalent experimental groups were formed, with twelve children in each group. Group 1
used the SEP text in the usual fashion (G1), Group 2 used the modified text in the form known as
“integration” (G2), and Group 3 used the same modified text in the form known as “deduction” (G3).
G2 initially had twelve children, but one stopped attending during the intervention and two were absent
during the post-evaluation because of illness.
Instrument of Evaluation
To observe the type of skills shown by the children before and after the intervention, the test design
was based on the topics, objectives, and contents indicated by SEP in the books entitled Plan y programas
de estudio 1993 and Avance programático (1994); the elaboration of networks was added, although not
considered in the program’s objectives. The evaluated skills are: a) re-elaborating expressions that refer
to biological concepts contained in the text; b) elaborating expressions that are not explicit in the text
but are derived from concepts; c) organizing images, classifying them according to the concepts covered
by the text and d) organizing concepts, elaborating conceptual networks. (A sample of the questions is
presented in Annex 2.)
The maximum score on the test is 42 points: 20 points can be obtained by re-elaborating
expressions that refer to concepts, 11 points by answering questions that require deduction, 8 points by
classifying images, and 3 points by elaborating a conceptual network.
Based on the text’s content and the analysis of the children’s responses, criteria were elaborated for
assigning scores to the responses to each question. To elaborate clear criteria applicable to all cases,
three researchers read fifteen children’s responses to each question, constructing and adjusting the
categories. Zero, one, or two points could be obtained on the open-ended questions; the responses to
the exercises with images and conceptual networks were given zero or one point. Subsequently, each
researcher rated the remaining evaluations. If a response could not be included easily in one of the
categories, all of the researchers analyzed it to reach a consensus. If necessary, the categories were made
more precise or broad (see criteria used in Annex 3).
Procedure
Initial Evaluation and Assignment of Children to Groups
The test was given to all the second-graders present on the day of the evaluation. After forming the
three equivalent groups, each group received instruction during three sessions of approximately one
hour, as described below.
Group 1. SEP Text
The readings used with this group were “Las plantas y los animales” (pp. 102-103), “Semejanzas y
differencias entre las plantas y animales” (p. 107) and “La alimentación” (pp. 114-115), from Libro
integrado de segundo grado, developed by the SEP. With these texts, work proceeded as follows: 1) The
children were told to read the title of the topic and were asked what it was about; based on the different
elements from the title, the psychologist guided the children to approach the content; 2) The collective
reading—three consecutive times—of each paragraph was requested, and questions were asked that
implied selecting and repeating content from the paragraph’s parts; and 3) The children completed the
exercises at the end of each topic; a) The children drew the growth of a plant in sequence and
compared the size; b) The children made an annotation in a notebook about their observation of an
animal’s food; c) The children made comments in class about the characteristics of the plants and
animals they were familiar with, along with their names, similarities and differences, and then drew
them in the book and wrote their names; and d) The children researched, wrote, and compared what
four animals eat. They completed exercise “b” as homework (see Annex 4).
Group 2. Integration
A modified text that addressed the same topics was used (see Annex 4). The modifications were made
based on the guidelines described above. The work was done as follows: a) The children read a
paragraph aloud, three times; b) They read in a collective manner the instructions for completing the
exercises; c) The children were asked to answer aloud, and write the correct answer in their text; d)
Given the children’s lack of skills for solving the exercises, the researchers asked them to read the text
again and then guided the children in looking for elements in the text that would help them find the
required answer; and e) The researchers supervised the written responses in the texts.
After finishing work with the text, the researchers asked the children questions to stimulate their use
of ordinary language to explain their contacts with living things and biological phenomena;
subsequently, the researchers helped them make their descriptions with the use of the language of
biology. For example: Who has seen a dog, cat, or bird grow? How was it at the beginning? How is it
now? (Based on the children’s responses, the instructor attempted to reconstruct the phases of the life
cycle.)
Group 3. Deduction
The first part involved working with the modified text, in the same manner as with Group 2. Once the
work with the text had been completed, the researchers attempted to have the children detach from
their individual contacts and move to another logic of articulation. To achieve this end, the researchers
presented images of various living things and asked questions such as: What would happen if…? And
why? The purpose was for the children, guided by the researcher, to make inferences based on the
conceptual system of biology. For example: What would happen to this cat if it stopped eating? (The
question is next to the image of a kitten.) Why? (Annex 4) The children are encouraged, through the
use of new questions, to re-elaborate the definition of the explained function of alimentation or the
reading from the text, so that they can elaborate the response based on the definition.
Final Evaluation
The day after the conclusion of training, all the groups completed the same evaluation that was used at
the beginning of the research. The children who were absent on the day of the group evaluation were
evaluated one or two days later as they arrived in class.
Results
The results of thirty-three children are presented. Three of the children, all in Group 2, who
participated in the initial evaluation did not attend the group instruction sessions or evaluation.
Differences between the Texts with Their Usage Guide
To evaluate the differences between the texts and the uses associated with them, Figure 1 presents the
changes in linguistic skills between the first and second evaluations. These values were obtained by
subtracting from the second evaluation the score obtained on the first evaluation; negative values mean
that children obtained lower scores on the second test. This figure shows that the procedure of
instruction used in G1 did not promote the development of linguistic skills in one-third of the group;
four children obtained lower scores on the second evaluation. With respect to G2, the figure indicates
that only one of the children was not benefited by this instruction. All the children taught in G3
increased the total correct answers.
FIGURE 1
DIFFERENCES 1st-2nd EVALUATION
Changes Observed in Each Child between the First and Second Evaluation
GROUP 1
20
20
GROUP 2
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
0
0
0
-5
-5
-5
-10
-10
-10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21
GROUP 3
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
CHILDREN
On applying the nonparametric Wilcoxon test, with respect to G1 no significant differences of .05 were
found between the first and second evaluations (Z= -1.062; p = .288); while the other two groups did
attain significant differences. The statistical values for G2 are Z = -2.153 and p = .031 and for G3, Z =
-3.070 and p = .002
Specific Skills
In order to analyze which specific skills show these differences, the same test was used and the scores
considered on the re-elaboration of concepts, elaboration of deductions, classification of images, and
elaboration of conceptual network. Chart 1 shows that in G1 no significant differences exist between
the first and second evaluations in any of the evaluated skills. In G2 and G3, differences were found in
the skill of re-elaborating concepts. The values obtained on the test for G2 are Z=-2.536 and p=.011
and for G3, Z=-3.070 and p=.002. Only G3 revealed significant differences with respect to the
elaboration of deductions (Z=-2.200; p=.028). However, the skills that refer to images and networks
show no significant differences in any of the three groups.
CHART 1
Results Obtained from Applying the Wilcoxon Test to Data from Specific Skills by Group
Reelaborations
Deductions
Images
Networks
G1
Z
p
-1.713
.087
-1.186
.236
-.552
.581
.000
1.000
G2
Z
p
-2.536
.011
-1.414
.157
-.677
.498
-1.000
.317
Z
-3.070
-2.200
-1.890
-1.414
p
.002
.028
.059
.157
G3
Chart 2 presents the children’s progress by group in the two skills with significant differences, showing
that most of the children from G3 increased their skill in re-elaborating and elaborating deductions, in
comparison with the G1 children who showed no progress. On the other hand, the children from G2
obtained increases only in skills of re-elaboration.
CHART 2
Percentage of Children in Each Group Who Increased Their Skills
of Re-elaborating Definitions and Elaborating Deductions
Skill
Re-elaborations
Deduction
% of Children Who Showed Increases
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
67
89
100
33
44
78
Comparison Among Groups
In order to analyze if the differences observed among groups are statistically significant, the
nonparametric Kruskal Wallis test was applied for independent k samples. The statistical results indicate
a significant difference among the three groups, of less than .05 (X 2=7.320; gl=2; p=.026).
In order to determine the groups between which a significant difference exists, Mann-Whitney’s
nonparametric U test was applied, with two tails. Although differences can be seen among the three
groups, only the differences between G1 and G3 are significant (Z=-2.698, p = .007).
Conclusions and Discussion
This section is divided into two sections: direct derivations from the study and analysis in the setting of
the application of knowledge.
Direct Derivations from the Study
To establish conclusions and discuss results, we shall define the differences within a group and among
groups based on the statistical criteria. The reason is that we are interested in projecting the results to
the educational setting and the classroom, and not to the psychological setting.
1) The children’s work with the SEP book and the normal use associated with it, did not promote
progress in any of the linguistic skills evaluated. These results coincide with those reported by
Méndez et al. (2005) and Paz (1999, 2000) relative to student learning.
2) Groups 2 and 3, which shared the modified text, advanced with respect to the re-elaboration
skills.
The above indicates that the procedures that favored the progress observed in the handling of
definitions are: a) activities and exercises that promote the development of skills for naming, reelaborating definitions and relations between technical terms, by the repeated reading of the
paragraphs of the modified text and exercises that repeat what is read; b) exercises that promote
the development and integration of linguistic and observational skills, by requesting students to
relate images with concepts and draw relations expressed in concepts, and c) exercises that
promote the detachment of integrated skills with respect to situational factors by asking
questions that exert pressure on students to derive the response from the semantic relations of
ordinary language, from the conceptual relations of the scientific system, and from translations
of ordinary language to scientific language or vice versa.
In contrast, in the SEP text, the exercises are presented only at the end of the topic and represent
one-fourth of those included in the modified text. Two of the four exercises require drawing
relations expressed in the text; another exercise requests associating images with concepts, and
the last exercise requests associating technical concepts with ordinary language.
3) Only G3 advanced with respect to the ability to elaborate deductions. This result indicates that
strengthening the exercises on the text—with questions that exert pressure to derive responses
from conceptual relations and to justify them based on those relations—promoted progress in
deductions.
4) On comparing the groups with respect to specific skills, significant differences were found
between G1 and G3 only in re-elaborations. For this reason, exercises that are oriented to
promoting detachment must be incorporated into the text, by means of questions that require
elaborating deductions mediated by concepts; and then the deductions must be justified.
Application of Knowledge
The belief that teachers play a central role in students’ academic progress, especially in elementary
school, requires research work that is oriented to identifying the different ways teachers put
instructional proposals into practice; research must also determine the factors that are involved in this
process. For this reason, even when the results indicate that redesigned texts promote learning and the
transfer of learning, the next step in the research process would consist of evaluating teachers’
implementation of those texts directly in the classroom, with two purposes: a) to make the
corresponding adjustments derived from the increase in the number of children and the contributions
that teachers make to the proposal; and b) elaborating an economical way of presenting an instructional
proposal that ensures that a high percentage of teachers will put the “essential” aspect of the program
into practice.
Looking at the study results, we consider it relevant to emphasize that as a consequence of text
modification, an observed increase occurred in students’ tendency (transfer) to organize learning in
other scenarios, with categories of biology; thus the conceptual structures served to organize concrete
events that had not been studied at school. The application of the knowledge children learn in
educational scenarios constitutes one of the central purposes of formal education.
We consider it pertinent to explain certain aspects relative to the theoretical and empirical context of
the research work reported on here: a) The perspective contemplates interdisciplinary work that seeks
the articulation of basic research, applied research, and conceptual development; b) The basic research
was carried out with second-graders who attended public schools and the applied derivation is directed
to the same population; and c) The basic research considered units of observation with ecological
validity.
The research was directed to improve aspects relative to the organization of paragraphs and the
inclusion of exercises that favor learning and the transfer of learning; however, authors such as Paz and
Martínez (2008) present the need to restructure the teaching of biology relative to content.
Lastly, the idea of constantly evaluating the impact of texts on student learning and the possibilities
of application (transfer of learning) is broadly strengthened.
Notes
1 In this context, objects of knowledge refer to objects, organisms, events, sequences, transformations, and
relations that the discipline studies and with regard to which teachers promote the development of articulated
linguistic, observational, manipulative, and procedural skills.
2 Detachment refers to the dimension suggested by Ribes and López (1985) to classify interactions between
the organism and the environment, and refers to the degree of functional independence of these interactions with
respect to concrete factors.
Annexes
ANNEX 1
Children’s Sex, Age, and Score on First Evaluation
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Child
Sex
Age*
Total Score
Child
Sex
Age
Total Score
Child
Sex
Age
Total Score
1
M
7,9
8
13
F
7,7
9
22
M
7,4
8
2
F
7,11
9
14
M
7,9
9
23
F
7,1
10
3
M
7,8
11
15
M
7,5
9
24
M
7,6
11
4
M
7,9
15
16
F
7,4
16
25
F
7,9
15
5
F
7,8
16
17
F
7,2
12
26
M
7,11
15
6
F
7,9
12
18
F
7,3
13
27
F
7,10
12
7
F
7,2
11
19
F
7,0
12
28
M
7,9
11
8
M
7,6
9
20
M
7,8
14
29
M
7,2
11
9
F
7,5
14
21
F
7,6
13
30
F
7,6
11
10
M
7,7
4
34
M
7,2
1
31
M
7,4
4
11
M
7,4
6
35
M
7,3
8
32
F
7,5
6
12
M
8,2
18
36
F
7,4
16
33
F
7,10
21
*Years, months
ANNEX 2
Different Types of Questions Included on the Evaluation
Questions to evaluate skills of re-elaborating expressions explicitly contained in the text.
2. Write the functions plants and animals have in common.
3. Why do living things breathe?
5. What is the function of excretion?
7. How are plants and animals different?
8. How do plants obtain nourishment?
Questions to evaluate skills of elaborating expressions that are derived from concepts and their relations.
12. Why are dogs living things?
13. Is a car a living thing? YES _____ NO _____
Why?
14. How are a fly and a tree alike?
15. What functions does a prickly pear cactus carry out?
Question to evaluate skills of organizing images based on concepts and their relations.
11) Cross out the drawings of animals and circle the drawings of plants.
Questions to evaluate skills that refer to the organization of biological concepts.
17) Arrange the words in the charts so that the word on top includes the other two, as shown in the example.
Example
Ropa
Chamarra
Pantalón
Pantalón
Chamarra
Ropa
Plantas
Seres vivos
Animales
ANNEX 3
Evaluation Criteria
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13a
13b
14
15
16
17
Criteria
If student writes three or more parts of the life cycle or functions
If student writes one or two parts of the life cycle or functions
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student writes three or more functions
One or two functions
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student mentions growing and having energy (to grow healthy and strong)
If student includes one of the above aspects for living or for preventing death
Another unrelated thing or nothing
Graded the same as question 3
If student mentions discarding (eliminating, taking out, expelling) what does not work (to
remove the residue we do not need, to eliminate what our body does not need)
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student mentions having children (to have children)
If student mentions being born or something related (a baby is born)
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student mentions that plants make their own food, and animals eat plants and animals
(plants make their own food and animals do not)
If student mentions plants that do not move (displace), and animals that do (plants do not
walk and animals do, animals move around and plants do not)
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student mentions being through the roots (through the root or roots, in the root or roots)
If student mentions absorption or something related (they absorb water, you water them and they
drink it)
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student writes three or more elements (air, water, earth, and sun)
If student writes one or two elements
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student mentions plants and other animals (meat and plants)
If student mentions one of the above (animals, meat, vegetables, grass, plants)
Another unrelated thing or nothing
One point is awarded for each correct response (maximum 8)
If student writes two or more functions // Two or more parts of life cycle
If student writes a function or part of the life cycle
Another unrelated thing or nothing
Yes
No
If student writes two or more functions // Two or more parts of life cycle
If student writes one function or part of life cycle
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student mentions something related to living things, or something that carries out a
function or part of the life cycle
Another unrelated thing or nothing
If student writes three or more functions
If student writes one or two functions
Another unrelated thing or nothing
Criteria from above question were used
One point is awarded for each correct response (maximum 3)
Score
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
8
2
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
3
ANNEX 4
Text SEP
Selection of Sections of Text That Refer to Functions of Respiration and Alimentation
SEP (2002, p. 102)
Exercises that correspond to the content of the above paragraph.
SEP (2002, p. 105)
SEP (2002, p. 115)
Modified Text
Selection of Sections of Modified Text That Refer to the Functions of Respiration and Alimentation
Selection from page 1
Page 2
LAS FUNCIONES DE LOS SE RES VIVOS
Com o recordarás, las perso na s, las ma riposa s, los
á rb oles y el past o somo s seres vivos, venim os de
crec emos, n os reproducimos y m orimos.
tiburo nes, los
ot ro ser vivo,
Escribe en ca da dibujo la parte de l ciclo de vida que corresponda
germina r, crecer, reproducirse y morir.
_____ ____ ___
___ _____ ____
_ ____ ____ ___
Respiramos y nos alimentamos Para
crecer, tener energía y realizar diversas
actividades
_____ ____ ___
Existim os mucha s cla ses de seres vivos, y todos realiza mos las m ismas
funciones: respiramos, nos alimentamos, excretamo s y n os
reproducimos. En esta lecció n ha bla remo s de esta s funciones.
Escrib e en las líneas las:
Subraya lo que necesita esta
tortuga para crecer y tener
energía.
Funciones de los seres vivos
___ ____ ____
___ _____ ___
___ _____ ___
____ ____ __ _
1
Casa
Selection from page 4
Aire
Pelota
Alimento
Contesta las preguntas con base en lo que
leíste.
¿Para que le sirve a este rosal alimentarse?
Encierra en un circulo la
planta a la que dio vida este
rosal
____________________________________
____________________________________
Este conejo esta cansado
¿Qué funciones realiza esta mariposa?
¿Qué crees que le haga falta?
______________________________
______________________________
_____________________________________
¿Qué funciones realiza este árbol?
______________________________
_____________________________________
______________________________
¿Tienes animales o plantas? ¿Cuáles?
_________________________________________________________
2
¿Qué funciones has visto que ellos hacen?
_________________________________________________________
4
Selection of questions that encourage
children to integrate the language of biology
into their concrete referents.
Selection of questions that encourage
children to make inferences based on the
concepts and relations of biology.
1 ¿Han visto ustedes a una persona o un animal que
no se alimente bien? ¿Qué le pasa? ¿Qué han visto?
1 ¿Qué pasaría si este gato dejara
de alimentarse?
¿Por qué?
2. La reproduction es una de las functions que
realizamos los seres vivos ¿Qué otras functions
realizan los seres vivos?
2. ¿Qué le pasaría a este pez si
dejara de respirar?
¿Por qué?
References
Gallegos, L. y Flores, F. (2008). “Las representaciones de la ciencia en niños y su función en el aprendizaje con los
textos”, en G. Mares (coord.), Diseño psicopedagógico de textos. Diversos enfoques (pp. 111-139), Ciudad de México:
FES-Iztacala-UNAM.
Guevara, Y.; Mares, G.; Rueda, E.; Rivas, O.; Sánchez, B. y Rocha, H. (2005). “Niveles de interacción que se
propician en alumnos de educación primaria durante la enseñanza de la materia español”, Revista Mexicana de
Análisis de la Conducta, 31(1), 23-46.
Hernández, S. R.; Fernández, C. y Baptista, P. (2003). Metodología de la Investigación, 3a ed., Ciudad de México:
McGraw-Hill.
Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehabioral Psychology, Chicago, Illinois: The Principia Press, Inc.
Kantor, J. R. and Smith, N. W. (1975). The Science of Psychology. An interbehabioral survey, Chicago: The Principia
Press, Inc.
López-Manjón, A. y Postigo, Y. (2008). “De las representaciones en biología a las ilustraciones de los libros de
texto: las representaciones visuespaciales en el aprendizaje de la ciencia”, en G. Mares (coord.), Diseño
psicopedagógico de textos. Diversos enfoques (pp. 79-110), México: FES-Iztacala-UNAM.
López y Mota, A. (2003). “El currículo como proceso”, en A. López y Mota (ed.), Saberes científicos, humanísticos y
tecnológicos: procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje (pp. 397-444), Ciudad de México: COMIE.
López y Mota, A. (2006). “Evaluación en ciencias naturales. Visión actualizada del campo”, Revista Mexicana de
Investigación Educativa, XI (3), 721-739.
Mares, G. (2000). La transferencia desde una perspectiva interconductual. Desarrollo de competencias sustitutivas, tesis doctoral
inédita, México: UNAM.
Mares, G. (2001). “La transferencia desde una perspectiva de desarrollo psicológico”, en G. Mares y Y. Guevara
(coords.) Psicología interconductual. Avances en investigación básica (pp. 111-163), Ciudad de México: FES-IztacalaUNAM.
Mares, G. (2008). “Promoción de competencias a través de textos para la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales”, en
G. Mares (coord.), Diseño psicopedagógico de textos. Diversos enfoques (pp. 174-200), Ciudad de México: FES-IztacalaUNAM.
Mares, G. y Guevara, Y. (2004). “Propuesta para analizar la práctica educativa durante la enseñanza de las ciencias
naturales”, en J. J. Irigoyen (ed.), Análisis funcional del comportamiento (pp. 9-34), México: UniSon.
Mares, G.; Guevara, Y. y Rueda, E. (1996). “Modificación de las referencias orales y escritas a través de un
entrenamiento en lectura”, Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 30(2), 189-207.
Mares, G.; Guevara, Y.; Rueda, E.; Rivas, O. y Rocha, H. (2004). “Análisis de las interacciones maestra-alumnos
durante la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales en educación primaria”, Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa,
IX (22), 721-745.
Mares, G.; Ribes, E. y Rueda, E. (1990). “El nivel de funcionalidad en lectura y su efecto sobre la transferencia de
lo leído”, Revista Sonorense de Psicología, 7(1), 32-43.
Mares, G., Rivas, O. y Bazán, A. (2001). “Factores del entrenamiento que incrementa la probabilidad de relacionar
lingüísticamente objetos u organismos de manera condicional, causal y funcional”, Revista Latina de Pensamiento
y Lenguaje, 9(1), 81-103.
Mares, G.; Rivas, O.; Pacheco, V.; Rocha, H.; Dávila, P.; Peñalosa, I. y Rueda, E. (2006). “Análisis de lecciones de
enseñanza de biología en primaria. Propuesta para analizar los libros de texto de ciencias naturales”, Revista
Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, XI, 883-911.
Méndez, M.; Paz, V. y Martínez, M. L. (2005). “La enseñanza de la ciencia en la UPN”, Natura red, México: UPN.
Paz, V. (1999). “Un diagnóstico del nivel de conocimientos básicos en biología del niño, al ingresar a primero de
secundaria”, Xictli, 36, 9-14, disponible en http://www.unidad094.upn.mx/revista/xictli.htm
Paz, V. (2000). “¿Qué saben los maestros sobre la biología en primaria?”, Xictli, 40, 21-25, disponible en
http://www.unidad094.upn.mx/revista/xictli.htm
Paz, V. y Martínez, M. L. (2008). “La enseñanza de la biología en los textos de primaria en México, 1960-2000”,
en G. Mares (coord.) Diseño psicopedagógico de textos. Diversos enfoques (pp. 5-35), Ciudad de México: FES-IztacalaUNAM.
Ribes, E. y López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta. Un análisis de campo y paramétrico, Ciudad de México: Trillas.
Salas, M. W. (2008). “Instrucción programada: una alternativa para el diseño de textos”, en Mares (coord.), Diseño
psicopedagógico de textos. Diversos enfoques (pp. 79-110), Ciudad de México: FES-Iztacala-UNAM.
(1993). Educación básica primaria: Plan y programas de estudio, Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Educación Pública.
(1994). Avance programático: segundo grado. Educación básica primaria, Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Educación
Pública.
SEP (1998). Libro integrado de segundo grado. Educación básica primaria, Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Educación
Pública.
Varela-Barraza, J. (2008). “Textos para el aprendizaje de la geografía en la educación básica”, en G. Mares (coord.)
Diseño psicopedagógico de textos. Diversos enfoques (pp. 141-170), Ciudad de México: México: FES-Iztacala-UNAM.
Vargas, M. (2001). “Actividades de producción oral y escrita en libros de texto de español. Aproximaciones a un
análisis de dos libros destinados a primer grado de primaria”, Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, VI (12),
249-261.
SEP
SEP
Article Received: November 20, 2007
Ruling: April 29, 2008
Second Version: June 18, 2008
Comments on Second Version: July 29, 2008
Third Version: September 3, 2008
Accepted: October 3, 2008