重新思考“差距”:认知发展和科学推理中的自主学习。

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-07 DOI:10.1002/wcs.1580
Elizabeth Lapidow, Caren M Walker
{"title":"重新思考“差距”:认知发展和科学推理中的自主学习。","authors":"Elizabeth Lapidow,&nbsp;Caren M Walker","doi":"10.1002/wcs.1580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To improve upon their current knowledge, learners must be able to generate informative data and accurately evaluate this evidence. However, there is substantial disagreement regarding self-directed learners' competence in these behaviors. Researchers in cognitive development have suggested that learners are \"intuitive scientists,\" generating informative actions and rationally coordinating their current observations and prior beliefs from an early age. Conversely, researchers in scientific reasoning report that learners struggle with experimentation and often fail to reach appropriate conclusions from evidence, even as adults. According to the prevailing narrative, these inconsistent findings must be \"bridged\" to explain the gap between learners' successes and failures. Here, we advocate for an alternative approach. First, we review the research on scientific reasoning and find that there may be less evidence for learners' failures than is typically assumed. Second, we offer a novel interpretation that aims to account for both literatures: we suggest that self-directed learners may be best understood as competent causal reasoners. That is, many seemingly uninformative or irrational behaviors are consistent with the goals of causal learning. This account not only resolves the apparent contradictions in the existing research, but also offers a way forward towards a more accurate and integrated understanding of self-directed learning. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Development and Aging Psychology > Learning Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making.</p>","PeriodicalId":47720,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","volume":"13 2","pages":"e1580"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking the \\\"gap\\\": Self-directed learning in cognitive development and scientific reasoning.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Lapidow,&nbsp;Caren M Walker\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wcs.1580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To improve upon their current knowledge, learners must be able to generate informative data and accurately evaluate this evidence. However, there is substantial disagreement regarding self-directed learners' competence in these behaviors. Researchers in cognitive development have suggested that learners are \\\"intuitive scientists,\\\" generating informative actions and rationally coordinating their current observations and prior beliefs from an early age. Conversely, researchers in scientific reasoning report that learners struggle with experimentation and often fail to reach appropriate conclusions from evidence, even as adults. According to the prevailing narrative, these inconsistent findings must be \\\"bridged\\\" to explain the gap between learners' successes and failures. Here, we advocate for an alternative approach. First, we review the research on scientific reasoning and find that there may be less evidence for learners' failures than is typically assumed. Second, we offer a novel interpretation that aims to account for both literatures: we suggest that self-directed learners may be best understood as competent causal reasoners. That is, many seemingly uninformative or irrational behaviors are consistent with the goals of causal learning. This account not only resolves the apparent contradictions in the existing research, but also offers a way forward towards a more accurate and integrated understanding of self-directed learning. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Development and Aging Psychology > Learning Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"e1580\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1580\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1580","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

为了提高他们现有的知识,学习者必须能够生成翔实的数据并准确地评估这些证据。然而,关于自主学习者在这些行为中的能力,存在着实质性的分歧。认知发展方面的研究人员认为,学习者是“直觉科学家”,从很小的时候起就会产生信息行为,并理性地协调他们当前的观察和先前的信念。相反,科学推理领域的研究人员报告说,学习者在实验中遇到困难,即使是成年人,也常常无法从证据中得出适当的结论。根据流行的说法,这些不一致的发现必须“弥合”,以解释学习者成功和失败之间的差距。在这里,我们提倡另一种方法。首先,我们回顾了科学推理的研究,发现学习者失败的证据可能比通常假设的要少。其次,我们提供了一种新颖的解释,旨在解释这两种文献:我们认为自主学习者最好被理解为有能力的因果推理者。也就是说,许多看似无信息或非理性的行为与因果学习的目标是一致的。这种解释不仅解决了现有研究中的明显矛盾,而且为更准确、更全面地理解自主学习提供了一条道路。本文分类为:心理学>发展与衰老心理学>学习心理学>推理与决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rethinking the "gap": Self-directed learning in cognitive development and scientific reasoning.

To improve upon their current knowledge, learners must be able to generate informative data and accurately evaluate this evidence. However, there is substantial disagreement regarding self-directed learners' competence in these behaviors. Researchers in cognitive development have suggested that learners are "intuitive scientists," generating informative actions and rationally coordinating their current observations and prior beliefs from an early age. Conversely, researchers in scientific reasoning report that learners struggle with experimentation and often fail to reach appropriate conclusions from evidence, even as adults. According to the prevailing narrative, these inconsistent findings must be "bridged" to explain the gap between learners' successes and failures. Here, we advocate for an alternative approach. First, we review the research on scientific reasoning and find that there may be less evidence for learners' failures than is typically assumed. Second, we offer a novel interpretation that aims to account for both literatures: we suggest that self-directed learners may be best understood as competent causal reasoners. That is, many seemingly uninformative or irrational behaviors are consistent with the goals of causal learning. This account not only resolves the apparent contradictions in the existing research, but also offers a way forward towards a more accurate and integrated understanding of self-directed learning. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Development and Aging Psychology > Learning Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
The Multiple Dimensions of Familiarity: From Representations to Phenomenology. Compositionality in perception: A framework. An update of the development of motor behavior. Consciousness Under the Spotlight: The Problem of Measuring Subjective Experience. Catching Mind Wandering With Pupillometry: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1