Experts’ reasoning about the replication crisis: Apt epistemic performance and actor-oriented transfer

IF 3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
J. A. Greene, C. Chinn, Victor M. Deekens
{"title":"Experts’ reasoning about the replication crisis: Apt epistemic performance and actor-oriented transfer","authors":"J. A. Greene, C. Chinn, Victor M. Deekens","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2020.1860992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: The modern world is rife with complex challenges that require citizens to weigh multiple, conflicting claims and competing methods for discerning truth from falsehood. Such evaluations depend highly upon prior knowledge. Therefore, the goal of epistemic education is the cultivation of apt epistemic performance: successfully achieving valuable epistemic aims (e.g., evaluating conflicting claims, discerning truth from falsehood) through competent use of ideals and reliable processes across a range of contexts. However, educators cannot prepare people for every contentious claim they will encounter over their lifetime. Therefore, we investigated if and how apt epistemic performance developed in one discipline could be adapted or transferred for use in another discipline. Methods: We analyzed think-aloud protocol data gathered as experts from psychology, other social sciences (i.e., near transfer), and natural sciences (i.e., far transfer) grappled with a complex problem: psychology’s replication crisis. Findings: An actor-oriented approach best captured how experts outside of psychology were able to near transfer or adapt epistemic performance; far transfer was more difficult. Contribution: Our findings suggest epistemic education for an informed citizenry should prioritize teaching disciplinary norms and practices as well as their scope and limitations, along with self-awareness of when transfer is and is not appropriate.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"131 1","pages":"351 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1860992","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: The modern world is rife with complex challenges that require citizens to weigh multiple, conflicting claims and competing methods for discerning truth from falsehood. Such evaluations depend highly upon prior knowledge. Therefore, the goal of epistemic education is the cultivation of apt epistemic performance: successfully achieving valuable epistemic aims (e.g., evaluating conflicting claims, discerning truth from falsehood) through competent use of ideals and reliable processes across a range of contexts. However, educators cannot prepare people for every contentious claim they will encounter over their lifetime. Therefore, we investigated if and how apt epistemic performance developed in one discipline could be adapted or transferred for use in another discipline. Methods: We analyzed think-aloud protocol data gathered as experts from psychology, other social sciences (i.e., near transfer), and natural sciences (i.e., far transfer) grappled with a complex problem: psychology’s replication crisis. Findings: An actor-oriented approach best captured how experts outside of psychology were able to near transfer or adapt epistemic performance; far transfer was more difficult. Contribution: Our findings suggest epistemic education for an informed citizenry should prioritize teaching disciplinary norms and practices as well as their scope and limitations, along with self-awareness of when transfer is and is not appropriate.
专家对复制危机的推理:恰当的认知绩效与行动者导向的转移
摘要背景:现代世界充满了复杂的挑战,要求公民权衡多种相互冲突的主张和竞争的方法来辨别真伪。这种评价高度依赖于先验知识。因此,认识论教育的目标是培养恰当的认识论表现:通过在一系列背景下有效地使用理想和可靠的过程,成功地实现有价值的认识论目标(例如,评估相互矛盾的主张,辨别真伪)。然而,教育工作者无法为人们在一生中遇到的每一个有争议的主张做好准备。因此,我们研究了在一个学科中发展起来的恰当的认知表现是否以及如何适应或转移到另一个学科中使用。方法:我们分析了来自心理学、其他社会科学(即近迁移)和自然科学(即远迁移)的专家收集的有声思维协议数据,这些专家正在努力解决一个复杂的问题:心理学的复制危机。研究发现:以行为者为导向的方法最好地捕捉了心理学以外的专家如何能够接近转移或适应认知表现;远距离转移比较困难。贡献:我们的研究结果表明,对知情公民的认识论教育应该优先教授学科规范和实践,以及它们的范围和局限性,以及何时转移合适和不合适的自我意识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信