British Journal of Educational Psychology最新文献

Background: Using simulations in science instruction can help make abstract topics more concrete and boost students' understanding.

Aims: The current research examined whether using a simulation as an exploratory learning activity before an accompanying lecture has additional learning and motivational benefits compared to a more common lecture-then-simulation approach.

Samples: Participants (Experiment 1, N = 168; Experiment 2, N = 357) were undergraduate students in several sections of a first-year chemistry course.

Methods: Students were randomly assigned to explore a simulation on atomic structure either before a lecture (explore-first condition) or after the lecture (instruct-first condition). In Experiment 1, the simulation activity time was limited (15 min) and the activity varied in whether self-explanation ('why') prompts were included. In Experiment 2, the activity time was lengthened (20 min), and only 'why' prompts were used. After the activity and lecture, students completed a survey and posttest.

Results: In Experiment 1, students in the explore-first condition scored lower on posttest conceptual knowledge scores and reported lower curiosity compared to students in the instruct-first condition. Scores for basic facts and transfer knowledge, and self-reported situational interest, self-efficacy, and competence, were equal between conditions. No effects of prompt condition were found. In Experiment 2, with longer activity time, the results reversed. Students in the explore-first condition scored equally on basic facts and higher on conceptual knowledge and transfer measures, while also reporting higher curiosity, situational interest, self-efficacy, competence, and cognitive engagement.

Conclusion: When properly designed, placing simulations before-rather than after-lecture can deepen learning, motivation, and competence.

Background: Evidence suggests that FRIENDS, a universal cognitive behavioural programme for schools, can improve children's emotional health, yet debate persists regarding its efficacy with respect to prevention versus treatment, particularly for children at risk of anxiety disorders.

Aim: To examine the impact of FRIENDS across different risk categories by assessing: (a) changes in risk status resulting from intervention and (b) treatment effects within specific risk groups.

Sample and methods: Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial (ISRCTN13721202) conducted between 2016 and 2018 involving approximately 3000 pupils (aged 9-10) from 79 schools. Self-reported anxiety, depression and worry measures were collected at pre- and post-test. Risk categories were established using baseline anxiety and depression scores.

Results: FRIENDS did not significantly change risk status, neither reducing risk (χ² (1) = 1.667; p =.797) nor preventing progression to higher risk categories (χ² (1) = .44; p =.507). Within risk categories, significant effects appeared only in the clinical risk group (β = 1.83 (SE = .14), d = .67), with no significant effects for borderline (β = 1.03 (SE = .98), d = .18) or normal (β = .03 (SE = .33), d < .01) categories.

Conclusion: While FRIENDS did not alter risk status, there appears treatment effects specifically for children within the clinical range for anxiety and depression. Findings provide a more nuanced understanding of who benefits from universal school-based interventions. Findings inform health and education professionals in balancing FRIENDS' treatment effects against factors like availability of alternative services, relative costs and sustainability.

Background: Persistent degree-awarding gaps exist in UK universities along the lines of domicile (UK vs. non-UK) and ethnicity (white British vs. ethnic minority). Although both intersect with language (English as a first or second language), research on the role of language in academic disparities in higher education remains sparse.

Aims: We sought to examine English language proficiency and literacy skills, academic performance, and perceptions among three groups of UK undergraduates: international students with English as a foreign language (EFL), home students with English as an additional language (EAL), and students with English as their first language (L1E).

Sample: We recruited 182 UK-based undergraduate students (60 EFL, 59 EAL and 63 L1E).

Method: We used psychometric tests to compare participants' cognitive, language and literacy profiles and conducted a survey to explore their perceptions. Average marks served as a proxy for academic performance.

Results: There was an L1E advantage in English proficiency and time-restricted literacy tasks. Specifically, smaller English vocabulary was associated with the EAL and EFL groups' slower reading and writing speed, with both vocabulary and speed contributing to lower essay quality and academic marks. Survey responses supported these findings: more EAL and EFL than L1E students reported challenges with English skills and concerns with their impact on academic performance.

Conclusions: Vocabulary knowledge and its fundamental effect on reading and writing skills remain crucial to understanding and addressing disparities in academic performance in higher education. Much remains to be done to level the playing field at UK universities.

Background: Research-practice partnerships reflect collaborations between researchers and practice-based professionals to co-produce new research knowledge and are often cited as one way to narrow the widely recognized gap between research and practice. Within the context of education, research-practice partnerships draw upon the knowledge, expertise and experience of researchers and practice professionals with the aim of co-producing methodologically robust and educationally relevant research aligned with priorities of practice. Over the last decade, this methodological approach has been gaining traction, yet it is not without its challenges and methodological considerations, which need to be understood and carefully navigated as this trajectory seems set to continue.

Aims: This article reviewed the benefits, challenges and methodological considerations associated with research-practice partnerships, and proposes four key enablers-infrastructure, funding, training and incentives-for research-practice partnerships to be optimally introduced, embedded and sustained.

Methods: Drawing upon the research literature and diverse examples of infrastructure, funding, training and incentives across different European contexts, specifically Sweden, Norway, Germany, England and Scotland, this article aimed to synthesize academic and real-world insights to advance knowledge and thinking in this area.

Conclusions: This article provides a contemporary account of key enablers that can initiate, develop, and sustain research-practice partnerships, drawing on insights from the research literature and illustrative examples of existing structures. In doing so, it aims to make a significant contribution to knowledge, thinking and potentially practice, as we work more collectively and productively together to reduce education inequalities and improve the educational experiences and outcomes of children and young people.