Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012
Dorothe Kienhues, Regina Jucks, R. Bromme
Abstract Science’s role in society is being threatened, as misinterpretation and denial of scientific evidence and the rejection or ignorance of scientific expertise are gaining prominence. This endangered role of science in society is characteristic of post-truthism. To deconstruct this process, we analyze how three potential gateways allow people to discount the epistemic authority of science. These gateways are (A) the intricacies between values and evidence in science, (B) the intricacies that follow from the social nature and distribution of scientific knowledge, and (C) those that follow from the limits of science. We also outline how this gateway analysis can inform education on scientific literacy in order to protect against post-truthism. Educational measures should highlight the social and conversational nature of scientific knowledge production, because these concepts lay the foundation for learners’ and citizens’ abilities to build an informed trust in science and, in turn, actively engage in a science-based society.
{"title":"Sealing the gateways for post-truthism: Reestablishing the epistemic authority of science","authors":"Dorothe Kienhues, Regina Jucks, R. Bromme","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Science’s role in society is being threatened, as misinterpretation and denial of scientific evidence and the rejection or ignorance of scientific expertise are gaining prominence. This endangered role of science in society is characteristic of post-truthism. To deconstruct this process, we analyze how three potential gateways allow people to discount the epistemic authority of science. These gateways are (A) the intricacies between values and evidence in science, (B) the intricacies that follow from the social nature and distribution of scientific knowledge, and (C) those that follow from the limits of science. We also outline how this gateway analysis can inform education on scientific literacy in order to protect against post-truthism. Educational measures should highlight the social and conversational nature of scientific knowledge production, because these concepts lay the foundation for learners’ and citizens’ abilities to build an informed trust in science and, in turn, actively engage in a science-based society.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90335281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1784735
R. Duschl
Abstract Knowledge building dynamics are central to scientific communities and involve dialog, debate, inquiry, and contested reasoning. Refining and developing knowledge is an oft missing dynamic in precollege educational programs. Practical reasoning and human decision making are essential epistemic and social dynamics in knowledge-building struggles and quests for the truth. Implications are presented for how a “Context of Development” approach can address “knowledge about science” learning goals and provide a framework for embedding struggles into the design of investigations and inquiries. The goal is providing learners/citizens with opportunities to acquire and make sense of evidence and then deploy that evidence for evaluating and explaining natural and social systems.
{"title":"Practical reasoning and decision making in science: Struggles for truth","authors":"R. Duschl","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1784735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784735","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Knowledge building dynamics are central to scientific communities and involve dialog, debate, inquiry, and contested reasoning. Refining and developing knowledge is an oft missing dynamic in precollege educational programs. Practical reasoning and human decision making are essential epistemic and social dynamics in knowledge-building struggles and quests for the truth. Implications are presented for how a “Context of Development” approach can address “knowledge about science” learning goals and provide a framework for embedding struggles into the design of investigations and inquiries. The goal is providing learners/citizens with opportunities to acquire and make sense of evidence and then deploy that evidence for evaluating and explaining natural and social systems.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89003694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1784734
Iris Tabak
Abstract It would be easier to navigate our information world if we had a navigational system to guide us. Absent such a system, the authors of the five articles in this special issue propose different ways to help learners engage with scientific information, in light of the post-truth condition. I suggest that the contribution of these articles lies in their emphasis on encouraging deliberation-oriented practices, and in presenting a qualified view of science. I further argue that greater knowledge of this qualified science, as well as privileging science, may be necessary components. In order to have an impact on learners’ lives, I encourage adopting a framework of mastery and appropriation, and giving greater attention to issues of appropriation.
{"title":"Post-truth GPS: Detour at truth, take the long route to useful knowledge","authors":"Iris Tabak","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1784734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784734","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It would be easier to navigate our information world if we had a navigational system to guide us. Absent such a system, the authors of the five articles in this special issue propose different ways to help learners engage with scientific information, in light of the post-truth condition. I suggest that the contribution of these articles lies in their emphasis on encouraging deliberation-oriented practices, and in presenting a qualified view of science. I further argue that greater knowledge of this qualified science, as well as privileging science, may be necessary components. In order to have an impact on learners’ lives, I encourage adopting a framework of mastery and appropriation, and giving greater attention to issues of appropriation.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79434134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-19DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1778480
D. Lapsley, Dominic Chaloner
Abstract Post-truth trades on the corruption of argument and evidence to protect ideological commitment and social identity. We distinguish two kinds of post-truth environments, epistemic bubbles and echo chambers, and argue that facets of post-truth are countered the more science (and general) education encourages the development of intellectual virtues and internalization of science identity. After first locating our perspective on intellectual virtues within virtue epistemology and Aristotelian virtue theory, we argue that intellectual character is strongly metacognitive and requires a concept of science identity to provide a motivational force to the work of virtues. Our educational response to post-truth focuses on Aristotelian-inspired pedagogy for teaching virtues, metacognitive virtue strategies, and the development of science identity. The internalization of science identity is further developed in terms of moral education and Self-Determination Theory. We suggest further lines of theory and research and conclude that science education is in the business of character education.
{"title":"Post-truth and science identity: A virtue-based approach to science education","authors":"D. Lapsley, Dominic Chaloner","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1778480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1778480","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Post-truth trades on the corruption of argument and evidence to protect ideological commitment and social identity. We distinguish two kinds of post-truth environments, epistemic bubbles and echo chambers, and argue that facets of post-truth are countered the more science (and general) education encourages the development of intellectual virtues and internalization of science identity. After first locating our perspective on intellectual virtues within virtue epistemology and Aristotelian virtue theory, we argue that intellectual character is strongly metacognitive and requires a concept of science identity to provide a motivational force to the work of virtues. Our educational response to post-truth focuses on Aristotelian-inspired pedagogy for teaching virtues, metacognitive virtue strategies, and the development of science identity. The internalization of science identity is further developed in terms of moral education and Self-Determination Theory. We suggest further lines of theory and research and conclude that science education is in the business of character education.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81636825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-19DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130
N. Feinstein, David Waddington
Abstract Science education is likely to respond to the post-truth era by focusing on how science education can help individuals use scientists’ epistemological tools to tell what is true. This strategy, by itself, is inadequate for three reasons. First, science does not actually offer foundational truth, and incautious assertions about scientific truth can make the problems of the post-truth era worse. Second, scientific knowledge offers only part of the solution to personal and policy problems and must be reconstructed in context. Third, people think about and act on science in social context—both as members of their social and cultural groups and with other members of those groups. Taken together, these arguments suggest that we should be focusing on a different question: How can science education help people work together to make appropriate use of science in social context?
{"title":"Individual truth judgments or purposeful, collective sensemaking? Rethinking science education’s response to the post-truth era","authors":"N. Feinstein, David Waddington","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Science education is likely to respond to the post-truth era by focusing on how science education can help individuals use scientists’ epistemological tools to tell what is true. This strategy, by itself, is inadequate for three reasons. First, science does not actually offer foundational truth, and incautious assertions about scientific truth can make the problems of the post-truth era worse. Second, scientific knowledge offers only part of the solution to personal and policy problems and must be reconstructed in context. Third, people think about and act on science in social context—both as members of their social and cultural groups and with other members of those groups. Taken together, these arguments suggest that we should be focusing on a different question: How can science education help people work together to make appropriate use of science in social context?","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75294937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1744150
Denis G. Dumas, Daniel M. McNeish, J. A. Greene
Abstract Scholars have lamented that current methods of assessing student performance do not align with contemporary views of learning as situated within students, contexts, and time. Here, we introduce and describe one theoretical–psychometric paradigm—termed dynamic measurement—designed to provide a valid representation of the way students respond to school-based instruction by estimating the learning potential of those students given their observed learning trajectory. We examine the century-long history of dynamic measurement, from its nascent theoretical beginnings, through its limited initial implementations, to the current development of a specialized modeling framework that allows it to be applied to large-scale educational data. We illustrate how dynamic measurement models (DMMs) can realize the goals of modern theory and measurement using a large longitudinal dataset of mathematics assessment data (i.e., 11,368 students nested within 98 schools and measured at 6 time points). These historical review and methodological demonstrations show the value of dynamic measurement, including better modeling of complex and contextually dependent influences on student learning.
{"title":"Dynamic measurement: A theoretical–psychometric paradigm for modern educational psychology","authors":"Denis G. Dumas, Daniel M. McNeish, J. A. Greene","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1744150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1744150","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scholars have lamented that current methods of assessing student performance do not align with contemporary views of learning as situated within students, contexts, and time. Here, we introduce and describe one theoretical–psychometric paradigm—termed dynamic measurement—designed to provide a valid representation of the way students respond to school-based instruction by estimating the learning potential of those students given their observed learning trajectory. We examine the century-long history of dynamic measurement, from its nascent theoretical beginnings, through its limited initial implementations, to the current development of a specialized modeling framework that allows it to be applied to large-scale educational data. We illustrate how dynamic measurement models (DMMs) can realize the goals of modern theory and measurement using a large longitudinal dataset of mathematics assessment data (i.e., 11,368 students nested within 98 schools and measured at 6 time points). These historical review and methodological demonstrations show the value of dynamic measurement, including better modeling of complex and contextually dependent influences on student learning.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88566760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-26DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
G. Sinatra, D. Lombardi
Abstract When individuals have questions about scientific issues, they often search the Internet. Evaluating sources of information and claims they find has become more difficult in the post-truth era. Students are often taught source evaluation techniques, but the proliferation of “fake news” has resulted in a misinformation arms race. As searchers get more sophisticated identifying misleading information, so do purveyors of information who intend to mislead. We draw on a theoretical model of plausibility judgments and current theory and research in source evaluation to suggest that the post-truth era elevates the need for critical evaluation of online information about scientific issues. We argue that explicitly reappraising plausibility judgments may be a crucial addition to evaluating the connections between sources of information and knowledge claims. Individuals who search for and read a scientific article online should ask themselves: Is this explanation plausible, and how do I know?
{"title":"Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments","authors":"G. Sinatra, D. Lombardi","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When individuals have questions about scientific issues, they often search the Internet. Evaluating sources of information and claims they find has become more difficult in the post-truth era. Students are often taught source evaluation techniques, but the proliferation of “fake news” has resulted in a misinformation arms race. As searchers get more sophisticated identifying misleading information, so do purveyors of information who intend to mislead. We draw on a theoretical model of plausibility judgments and current theory and research in source evaluation to suggest that the post-truth era elevates the need for critical evaluation of online information about scientific issues. We argue that explicitly reappraising plausibility judgments may be a crucial addition to evaluating the connections between sources of information and knowledge claims. Individuals who search for and read a scientific article online should ask themselves: Is this explanation plausible, and how do I know?","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83556623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-18DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1691004
H. Gros, J. Thibaut, E. Sander
Abstract Arithmetic problem solving is a crucial part of mathematics education. However, existing problem solving theories do not fully account for the semantic constraints partaking in the encoding and recoding of arithmetic word problems. In this respect, the limitations of the main existing models in the literature are discussed. We then introduce the Semantic Congruence (SECO) model, a theoretical model depicting how world and mathematical semantics interact in the encoding, recoding, and solving of arithmetic word problems. The SECO model’s ability to account for emblematic results in educational psychology is scrutinized through six case studies encompassing a wide range of effects observed in previous works. The influence of world semantics on learners’ problem representations and solving strategies is put forward, as well as the difficulties arising from semantic incongruence between representations and algorithms. Special attention is given to the recoding of semantically incongruent representations, a crucial step that learners struggle with.
{"title":"Semantic congruence in arithmetic: A new conceptual model for word problem solving","authors":"H. Gros, J. Thibaut, E. Sander","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2019.1691004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1691004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Arithmetic problem solving is a crucial part of mathematics education. However, existing problem solving theories do not fully account for the semantic constraints partaking in the encoding and recoding of arithmetic word problems. In this respect, the limitations of the main existing models in the literature are discussed. We then introduce the Semantic Congruence (SECO) model, a theoretical model depicting how world and mathematical semantics interact in the encoding, recoding, and solving of arithmetic word problems. The SECO model’s ability to account for emblematic results in educational psychology is scrutinized through six case studies encompassing a wide range of effects observed in previous works. The influence of world semantics on learners’ problem representations and solving strategies is put forward, as well as the difficulties arising from semantic incongruence between representations and algorithms. Special attention is given to the recoding of semantically incongruent representations, a crucial step that learners struggle with.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82967291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-18DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1670064
Nikki G. Lobczowski
Abstract Collaboration is an important lifelong and career skill, and collaborative learning is a growing pedagogical practice. Students often struggle, however, to negotiate, manage conflict, and construct knowledge with other group members. These struggles can lead to negative interactions, resulting in negative emotions. Students in collaborative settings must be able to effectively regulate emotions at both the individual and group level. More research is needed on the emotions that develop in collaborative learning environments and how they relate to socioemotional regulation (i.e., the collective regulation of emotions in group settings) in order to provide a better conceptualization of emotions in small group learning. In this article, I explore ideas from traditional, social, developmental, and educational psychology, combining key elements from seminal theoretical models to introduce a new model for emotion formation and regulation in collaborative learning environments.
{"title":"Bridging gaps and moving forward: Building a new model for socioemotional formation and regulation","authors":"Nikki G. Lobczowski","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2019.1670064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1670064","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Collaboration is an important lifelong and career skill, and collaborative learning is a growing pedagogical practice. Students often struggle, however, to negotiate, manage conflict, and construct knowledge with other group members. These struggles can lead to negative interactions, resulting in negative emotions. Students in collaborative settings must be able to effectively regulate emotions at both the individual and group level. More research is needed on the emotions that develop in collaborative learning environments and how they relate to socioemotional regulation (i.e., the collective regulation of emotions in group settings) in order to provide a better conceptualization of emotions in small group learning. In this article, I explore ideas from traditional, social, developmental, and educational psychology, combining key elements from seminal theoretical models to introduce a new model for emotion formation and regulation in collaborative learning environments.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85784513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432
R. Slavin
Abstract Evidence-based reform in education refers to policies that enable or encourage the use of programs and practices proven to be effective in rigorous research. This article discusses the increasing role of evidence in educational policy, rapid growth in availability of proven approaches, and development of reviews of research to summarize the evidence. A highlight of evidence-based reform was the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which defines strong, moderate, and promising levels of evidence for educational programs and ties certain federal funding to use of proven approaches. To illustrate how coordinated use of proven approaches could substantially improve educational outcomes, the article proposes use of proven programs to populate each of Tiers 1, 2, and 3 in response to intervention policies.
{"title":"How evidence-based reform will transform research and practice in education","authors":"R. Slavin","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Evidence-based reform in education refers to policies that enable or encourage the use of programs and practices proven to be effective in rigorous research. This article discusses the increasing role of evidence in educational policy, rapid growth in availability of proven approaches, and development of reviews of research to summarize the evidence. A highlight of evidence-based reform was the 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which defines strong, moderate, and promising levels of evidence for educational programs and ties certain federal funding to use of proven approaches. To illustrate how coordinated use of proven approaches could substantially improve educational outcomes, the article proposes use of proven programs to populate each of Tiers 1, 2, and 3 in response to intervention policies.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78693983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：