Attention toward contexts modulates context-specificity of behavior in human predictive learning: Evidence from the <Emphasis Type="Italic">n</Emphasis>-back task

According to the attentional theory of context processing (ATCP), learning becomes context specific when acquired under conditions that promote attention toward contextual stimuli regardless of whether attention deployment is guided by learning experience or by other factors unrelated to learning. In one experiment with humans, we investigated whether performance in a predictive learning task can be brought under contextual control by means of a secondary task that was unrelated to predictive learning, but supposed to modulate participants’ attention toward contexts. Initially, participants acquired cue-outcome relationships presented in contexts that were each composed of two elements from two dimensions. Acquisition training in the predictive learning task was combined with a one-back task that required participants to match across consecutive trials context elements belonging to one of the two dimensions. During a subsequent test, we observed that acquisition behavior in the predictive learning task was disrupted by changing the acquisition context along the dimension that was relevant for the one-back task, while there was no evidence for context specificity of predictive learning when the acquisition context was changed along the dimension that was irrelevant for the one-back task. Our results support the generality of the principles advocated by ATCP.     

The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: a student–scientist comparison

Multiple text comprehension can greatly benefit from paying attention to sources and from using this information for evaluating text information. Previous research based on texts from the domain of history suggests that source-related strategies are acquired as part of the discipline expertise as opposed to the spontaneous use of these strategies by students just entering a field. In the present study, we compared the performance of students and scientists in the domain of psychology with regard to (a) their knowledge of publication types, (b) relevant source characteristics, (c) their use of sources for evaluating the credibility of multiple texts, and (d) their ability to judge the plausibility of argumentative statements in psychological texts. Participants worked on a battery of newly developed computerised tests with a think-aloud instruction to uncover strategies that scientists and students used when reading a text. Results showed that scientists scored higher in all of the assessed abilities and that these abilities were positively correlated with each other. Importantly, the superior performance of scientists in evaluating the credibility of multiple texts was mediated by their use of source information. Implications are discussed in terms of discipline expertise.     

Teaching Inquiry With a Lens Toward Curiosity

Abstract

This paper links educational psychology research about curiosity to teacher moves that are effective in an inquiry-based mathematics classroom. Three vignettes will show explicit teacher moves (staging disagreement, intriguing anecdotes, and creating a safe space) for different audiences (math majors, mathematics for liberal arts students, and future elementary school teachers) and tie them to particular studies about curiosity. The goal is to deepen our thinking about inquiry-based teaching by considering curiosity as one of the starting points of inquiry. Educational psychologists have found ample evidence that curiosity improves learning. We claim that curiosity and inquiry are deeply connected in a curiosity–inquiry cycle and become most active in a classroom that exhibits a culture of asking questions.     

Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software

Manufacturers customarily provide only a few product variants to address the average needs of users in the major segments of markets they serve. When user needs are highly heterogeneous, this approach leaves many seriously dissatisfied. One solution is to enable users to modify products on their own using “innovation toolkits.” We explore the effectiveness of this solution in an empirical study of Apache security software. We find high heterogeneity of need in that field, and also find that users modifying their own software to be significantly more satisfied than non-innovating users. We propose that the “user toolkits” solution will be useful in many markets characterized by heterogeneous demand.     

An Approach to Evaluating the Missing Data Assumptions of the Chain and Post-stratification Equating Methods for the NEAT Design

Two important types of observed score equating (OSE) methods for the non-equivalent groups with Anchor Test (NEAT) design are chain equating (CE) and post-stratification equating (PSE). CE and PSE reflect two distinctly different ways of using the information provided by the anchor test for computing OSE functions. Both types of methods include linear and nonlinear equating functions. In practical situations, it is known that the PSE and CE methods will give different results when the two groups of examinees differ on the anchor test. However, given that both types of methods are justified as OSE methods by making different assumptions about the missing data in the NEAT design, it is difficult to conclude which, if either, of the two is more correct in a particular situation. This study compares the predictions of the PSE and CE assumptions for the missing data using a special data set for which the usually missing data are available. Our results indicate that in an equating setting where the linking function is decidedly non-linear and CE and PSE ought to be different, both sets of predictions are quite similar but those for CE are slightly more accurate .     

Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge

In this study we investigated junior high school students' processes of argumentation and cognitive development in science and socioscientific lessons. Detailed studies of the relationship between argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are rare. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin ( 1958 ). In parallel, students' development and use of scientific knowledge was also investigated, drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students' meaning‐making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that: (a) when engaging in argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enables students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can acquire a higher quality of argumentation that consists of well‐grounded knowledge with a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings further suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students' familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students' content‐specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in argumentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 101–131, 2008