Archives of scientific psychology最新文献

{"title":"Teachers’ Spatial Skills Across Disciplines and Education Levels: Exploring Nationally Representative Data","authors":"K. Atit, David I Miller, N. Newcombe, D. Uttal","doi":"10.1037/arc0000041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000041","url":null,"abstract":"Efforts to improve U.S. students’ educational outcomes have often focused on improving their engagement, performance, and retention in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Spatial skills, which enable us to visualize and manipulate objects in real and imagined spaces, are important for student learning in STEM. Additionally, student learning may depend on teachers’ skills and attitudes. This study used nationally representative data to examine the spatial skills of high school students who later became precollege teachers. Results showed that secondary STEM teachers had substantially stronger spatial skills than secondary non-STEM teachers and preschool/primary teachers. Compared to the general population, 79% of secondary STEM teachers had above average spatial skills versus 61% of secondary non-STEM teachers and 47% of preschool/primary teachers. The weaker spatial skills of preschool and primary teachers are concerning because spatial skills are key to STEM learning beginning at early ages. These results suggest future research is needed to investigate how teachers’ spatial skills influence student learning. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Teachers’ skills and attitudes in a specific domain can influence students’ learning in that domain. Here we focused on spatial skills, which are important for learning in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Fostering students’ spatial skills may rely on teachers’ comfort in implementing spatially demanding activities in the classroom. This study used nationally representative data from Project TALENT to examine the spatial skills of high school students who later became preschool to high school teachers (n 4,428 teachers). Results showed that secondary STEM teachers had This article was published November 8, 2018. Kinnari Atit and David I. Miller, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University; Nora S. Newcombe, Department of Psychology, Temple University; David H. Uttal, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University. This article is part of the special section “Educational Psychology.” The guest editor for this section is Melody Wiseheart. Researchers interested in reproducing or extending this analyses should contact the American Institutes of Research directly to obtain the Project TALENT dataset (see https://www.projecttalent.org/contact/). Copyright of this manuscript belongs to the author(s). The author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish this manuscript first, identify itself as the original publisher, and claim all commercial exploitation rights. Upon publication, the manuscript is available to the public to copy, distribute, or display under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial p","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"130–137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43517680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Metacognitive Evaluations During Science Simulations: How Do Ratings of Confidence and Understanding Relate to Science Assessment Inquiry Processes?","authors":"B. Finn","doi":"10.1037/arc0000037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000037","url":null,"abstract":"Science simulations are interactive tasks that allow students to explore a science phenomenon, collect data, and test hypotheses and allow researchers to investigate the science inquiry processes. Though simulations are increasingly being used in assessment, little is known about how students’ confidence and understanding relate to their within-simulation assessment behaviors. To explore the relationship between metacognition and science inquiry in a simulation assessment, 309 adult participants answered a series of questions about the simulated phenomenon of concentration. For example, in the concentration simulation, participants interacted with a concentration of solutions simulation to answer questions about saturation. Participants could manipulate variables in the simulation, such as the amount of solute and solvents added to a container, and create and modify data tables. The variables available for hypothesis testing (e.g., continuous vs. categorical input variables) were manipulated between participants and interactive inquiry behaviors, test performance, ratings of understanding of concentration, and confidence in test responses were measured. Results showed that overconfidence was related to reductions in adaptive inquiry behaviors and poorer assessment performance. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Science simulations are interactive tasks that allow students to explore a science phenomenon and engage in science inquiry by collecting data and testing hypotheses. Though simulations are increasingly being used in assessment, little is known about how students’ metacognition, such as confidence in a response and ratings of understanding of a simulated concept, relate to within-simulation assessment behaviors. The study explored the relationship between students’ metacognition and their science inquiry behaviors in a simulation assessment. During the simulation participants interacted with a concentration of solutions simulation to answer questions about saturation. Participants could manipulate variables in the simulation, such as the amount of solute and solvents added to a container, and create and modify data tables. Interactive inquiry behaviors, test performance, ratings of understanding of concentration, and confidence in test responses were measured. Results showed that overconfidence was related to reduced inquiry and poorer assessment performance.","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"117–129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49159556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Supplemental Material for Teachers’ Spatial Skills Across Disciplines and Education Levels: Exploring Nationally Representative Data","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/arc0000041.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000041.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45192053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Antecedents and Consequences of Social–Emotional Development: A Longitudinal Study of Academic Achievement","authors":"D. Hammer, E. Melhuish, S. Howard","doi":"10.1037/arc0000034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000034","url":null,"abstract":"SCIENTIFIC Different aspects of social–emotional development in early childhood—including self-regulation, hyperactivity, emotional problems, and peer problems—have each been shown to individually influence academic achievement into primary and secondary school. Environmental and demographic factors have also been shown to influence a child’s academic development. The current study extends previous work to consider—concurrently, using structural equation modeling—a broader array of antecedents and measures of social–emotional development to understand their relative relations with later academic outcomes. Parent-reported data on a nationally representative sample of children (N = 10,080) at ages 3 and 5 years, and academic assessment at age 7, from the Millennium Cohort Study were subjected to longitudinal modeling. Results indicated the individual and collective contributions of social–emotional, environmental, and demographic antecedents of academic progress. These results suggest that malleable factors in early childhood are important predictors of later academic success, and thus may be viable targets for intervention.","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"105–116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42802288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Inductive Category Learning, People Simultaneously Block and Space Their Studying Using a Strategy of Being Thorough and Fair","authors":"Nate Kornell, Kalif E. Vaughn","doi":"10.1037/arc0000042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000042","url":null,"abstract":"Learning efficiency increases when study trials are spaced apart rather than blocked together. Interleaving is a kind of spacing in which similar items are studied in a mixed order. Previous research has shown that learners typically think blocking is more effective than interleaving. We allowed learners to control how much blocking and spacing they did. In our crucial second experiment, 61 participants studied five photographs each of 10 species of penguin. They arranged the spacing between repetitions of a given species by deciding, on each trial, which species they wanted to study next. During repetition learning (where each species was represented by a single photograph presented repeatedly), participants did more spacing and less blocking than they did during inductive category learning (where every photograph of a species was different). Rather than choosing blocking or spacing, participants chose blocking and spacing: They chose the same species on consecutive trials frequently, and when they did not their choices frequently maximized spacing. The high frequency of blocked and spaced responses was offset because participants rarely chose intermediate amounts of spacing. The authors hypothesize that participants used a “thorough and fair” strategy: Instead of consciously considering blocking or spacing when they decided how to study, participants blocked because they were trying to be thorough when they studied a given species, and spaced because they were trying to be fair to all of the species by not returning to one species until they had visited all of the others. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Studying something and then restudying it right away (blocking) is less effective than studying it and then restudying it again after a delay (spacing). Learners would do well to recognize the advantage of spacing, but they often rate it as being less effective than blocking. The authors looked at what happens when people are put in control of whether they block or space their own learning. Participants studied pictures of 5 penguins from each of 10 different species. They decided which species to study next on every trial. The results showed that participants did a lot of blocking, replicating previous research. This article was published November 8, 2018. Nate Kornell, Department of Psychology, Williams College; Kalif E. Vaughn, Department of Psychology, Northern Kentucky University. This article is part of the special section “Educational Psychology.” The guest editor for this section is Melody Wiseheart. Thank you to Robert A. Bjork for his guidance and support. This research was supported by Scholar Award 220020371 from the James S. McDonnell","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"138–147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47205756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Supplemental Material for Problematic Images of Science in Undergraduate Psychology Textbooks: How Well Is Science Understood and Depicted?","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/arc0000040.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000040.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43749433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Explaining Language: A Behavioral Critique of Skinner’s Analysis of Verbal Behavior","authors":"James N. Meindl, Neal Miller, Jonathan W. Ivy","doi":"10.1037/arc0000045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000045","url":null,"abstract":"In Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner attempted to offer a functional account of human language and made a point of contrasting his approach with the more traditional accounts available at the time. Rather than focus on the structure or mechanics of language (formal aspects of language), Skinner attempted to identify the conditions that gave rise to those behaviors. Although Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior has been influential, particularly in treating language deficits for individuals with autism, there are conceptual problems with the way he defined and categorized verbal behavior. In this paper we argue that Skinner’s analysis is in fact largely based on formal aspects (rather than functional) and that this has both created confusion and limited the utility of the analysis. Specifically, we argue that Skinner’s formal account makes it difficult to distinguish verbal from nonverbal behavior and to distinguish the various types of verbal responses from one another. We then summarize and respond to some of the contemporary defenses and criticisms of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior. Finally, we argue that although Skinner’s analysis has had some practical utility, the conceptual benefits are questionable. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Skinner (1957) offered a behavioral account of language in his book Verbal Behavior. Compared to more traditional, structural accounts of language at the time, Skinner’s analysis attempted to identify the variables that control and maintain verbal behavior. This behavioral account of language has proven useful, especially in the area of treating language deficits for individuals with autism. However, there exist conceptual problems with Skinner’s analysis. The definition of verbal behavior and subsequent taxonomy of verbal operants (or units) is based largely on formal properties. We suggest that these formal elements of Skinner’s analysis result in arbitrary distinctions that emphasize the form of behavior or stimuli. This is problematic, at a conceptual level, as distinguishing between verbal and nonverbal behavior and distinguishing between the different verbal operants necessitates not only a functional account of stimuli but identification of the source and form of stimuli. In this paper, we examine some of the contemporary defenses and criticisms of Skinner’s analysis. Lastly, we conclude that although Skinner’s analysis of language has had practical utility, the conceptual benefits are limited.","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"80–86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48636438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The devil wears stata: Thin-ideal media’s minimal contribution to our understanding of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders.","authors":"C. Ferguson","doi":"10.1037/ARC0000044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ARC0000044","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48449474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Problematic Images of Science in Undergraduate Psychology Textbooks: How Well Is Science Understood and Depicted?","authors":"W. O’Donohue, Brendan Willis","doi":"10.1037/arc0000040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000040","url":null,"abstract":"Psychology is one of the most popular undergraduate majors in American universities, despite the fact that the field has many unsettled questions about how to best progress as a science or even if it qualifies as a science (Lilienfeld, 2012; O’Donohue, 2013). Lack of clarity and accuracy in describing what science is and psychology’s relationship to science are at the heart of these issues. To better understand how science is defined and its relationship to science is depicted, 30 undergraduate textbooks were examined and analyzed. It was predicted that authors would be inconsistent in their characterization of science. Additionally, it also was predicted that key controversies regarding the structure and methods of science would simply be ignored and support was also found regarding this prediction as well. This suggests that the textbook definitions of science were often simplistic. This analysis underscores the importance of a more consistent, accurate, and detailed presentation of the science for undergraduate psychology students, as well as the need for further scholarship in this area. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Psychology is one of the most popular undergraduate majors in American universities, despite the fact that the discipline still has many unsettled questions regarding fundamental philosophical and methodological issues (Lilienfeld, 2012; O’Donohue, 2013). These issues may be associated with a lack of clarity regarding an accurate conception of science and the nature of the relationship between psychology and science with respect to these controversies. Kuhn (1972) has suggested that scientific paradigms are transmitted in textbooks. To understand how the scientific status of psychology is depicted, 30 undergraduate textbooks were examined. It was hypothesized that across textbooks authors would be inconsistent regarding how science was characterized. This hypothesis was tentatively supported. It also was hypothesized that key controversies in metascience simply would be ignored and support was also found regarding this hypothesis suggesting that the proffered definitions of science were often simplistic. This analysis underscores the importance of a more consistent, accurate, and detailed presentation of the science for undergraduate psychology students, as well as the need for further scholarship in this area. This article was published August 20, 2018. William O’Donohue and Brendan Willis, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno. This article is part of the special section “Heterodox Issues in Psychology.” The guest editor for this section is Scott O. Lilienfeld. The authors have made available for use by others the data that underlie the analyses presented in this article (see O’Donohue & Willis, 2017), thus allowing replication and potential extensions of this work by qualified researchers. Next users are obligated to involve the data originators in their publication plans, if the originators so desire. Cop","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"51–62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44720075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Slim Chance for Permanent Weight Loss","authors":"E. Rothblum","doi":"10.1037/arc0000043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000043","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1950s, health and mental health professionals have criticized the conventional wisdom that people can lose weight and keep it off. Weight loss programs have high dropout rates and rarely have participants move from “clinical” to “normal” weights, and the overwhelming majority of people who lose even 5–10% of body weight have regained it 1 year later. The present article reviews some challenges in the weight loss research and provides some possible reasons why psychologists continue to uphold the conventional wisdom that permanent weight loss is possible. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Since the 1950s, health and mental health professionals have criticized the conventional wisdom that permanent weight loss is possible. Clinical trials on weight loss have high dropout rates and rarely have participants move from “clinical” to “normal” body mass index levels, and the overwhelming majority of people who lose even 5–10% of body weight have regained it 1 year later. The present article reviews some methodological issues in the weight loss literature and provides some possible reasons why psychologists continue to uphold the conventional wisdom that permanent weight loss is possible.","PeriodicalId":89891,"journal":{"name":"Archives of scientific psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":"63–69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43190510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}