跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系

采用科学领域的跨学科概念图创作任务, 探讨了跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力的关系。研究发现：（1）跨学科概念图创作能力与科学创造力显著正相关;（2）概念图创作的命题、交叉连接与创造力的流畅性、独创性、灵活性显著相关;交叉连接与独创性显著相关;（3）跨学科概念图创作能力的个体差异表现在科学创造力的各个方面。研究表明,跨学科概念图创作任务与科学创造力测验考察了学习者相似的心理能力;跨学科概念图创作不仅可以用于促进跨学科信息整合和知识建构,还可以作为理解学习者创造性思维能力的有效工具     

论风险灾害危机管理的跨学科研究

具有科层式结构的政府管理和学科认知,在应急管理领域中暴露出明显的缺陷,任何一门学科都不能完全胜任对风险灾害危机及其管理的研究。无论从应急管理的五类对象、还是从应急管理的五种结构来看,都需要多学科的合作。跨学科研究源于多学科合作,止于新的交叉学科诞生。跨学科研究困难重重,但却是目前应急管理研究前行的必由之路。     

学业成就、创造力与跨学科概念图创作能力的关系

为了从知识基础和创造性思维视角探讨跨学科知识整合的条件,以125名高二学生为被试采用相关研究设计考察了学业成就、创造力与跨学科概念图创造能力的关系。结果发现：（1）学业成就与跨学科概念图创作能力正相关;高成就组在命题、交叉和总分维度上的表现优于低成就组;而中成就组在命题和总分维度上的表现优于低成就组;（2）创造力与跨学科概念图创作能力正相关;创造力的流畅性和独创性与跨学科概念图的所有维度正相关;灵活性与概念图创作的命题、交叉、范例和总分正相关;（3）学业成就与创造力能够中等程度地预测跨学科概念图创作不同能力组被试的分布。这表明学业成就和创造力是跨学科知识整合的基础。     

问题数量类型在跨学科迁移中所起作用的研究

在有关学习迁移的研究中,人们发现在有生态效度的情境中和内容丰富的数量领域学到的数学问题解决程序,往往不易迁移,它的结构关系和方法程序受到特殊领域的概念意义的限定。而在另外一些领域,象数学、逻辑这类学科中所学的知识易于迁移,这些学科的一个明显特点是结构关系是学习的重点,内容只是用来证明这些关系。Bassok和Holyoak(1989)的研究曾考察了物理课中所学的问题解决程序的迁移。     

叙事与真实的世界：为连续性辩护

叙事与它描述的事件之间是一种怎样的关系?这是近年来有关叙事的跨学科讨论中研究争论的问题之一。在真实性一词非常宽泛的意义上,争论牵涉到了叙事性记述的真实性。传统叙事史学自称能告诉我们事实上发生过什么。     

以学定教：让“探究”与数学课堂教学同行

数学课程改革突出了教学观的转变,倡导教师的教不仅应考虑数学自身的特点,更应遵循学生学习数学的规律,强调从学生已有的生活经验出发,让学生亲身经历实际问题抽象成数学模型并进行解释与应用的过程,进而使学生获得对数学理解的同时,在思维能力、情感态度与价值观等多方面得到进步和发展。整个数学教学过程中教师只是学生学习的组织者、引导者与参与者。所以让“探究”与数学课堂教学同行,让学生经历探究过程,积累知识和方法,获得理智或情感体验,是高效课堂强有力的抓手,更是以学定教的强大举措。     

核心自我评价研究的反思与展望

核心自我评价是一种潜在的、宽泛的人格结构, 被定义为个体对自我能力和价值所持有的最基本的评价和估计。在过去十余年里, 核心自我评价的研究重点从早期关注结构的验证与测量、探讨核心自我评价在工作领域中的功能, 到近期开始转向探讨与心理健康、学业行为等变量的关系。另外, 核心自我评价的预测作用和调节作用可从动机、图式、能力、应对与获益和自我验证五种机制进行解释。核心自我评价的起源、过高核心自我评价是好是坏、核心自我评价还应包括或排除哪些因素、核心自我评价是否只有高低之分、“参照框架”对核心自我评价的预测力有何影响等涉及核心自我评价性质的问题目前仍没有得到解决。未来的研究可着眼于扩大研究领域、解决与核心自我评价性质有关的问题以及对核心自我评价进行本土化研究。     

跨学科视域下的当代"注视理论"——拉康对萨特注视理论的解读、批判与发展

萨特在《存在与虚无》中对"注视"的著名分析,在20世纪中叶的法国思想界引发了相当可观的理论效应.在此问题上,作为萨特重要对话者与批评者之一的拉康一方面高度评价了萨特对于注视以及相关问题的天才分析,另一方面又批判性地发展和深化了萨特的观点.拉康从其精神分析的临床经验与理论思考出发,通过借鉴梅洛-庞蒂等不同领域思想家的相关...     

基督教神学跨学科研究的积极意义

当社会学、生态学、人类学等学科被有效地利用和吸收进神学时,基督教就会对社会产生实质的正面影响力。从字根上来说,"神学"(theologia)即"神"(theos)加上"学"(logos),即theo-logos,意为"言说上帝"。     

论思维科学与认知科学的关系

“认知科学”（Cognitive Science）一词于1973年南朗盖特·希金斯开始使用，20世纪70年代后期才逐渐流行并开始兴盛起来，是从多学科出发研究信息加工认知活动规律的一组前沿性尖端学科，主要探究人脑或心智的工作机制。1975年，纽约市“斯隆基金会”开始对认知科学的跨学科研究计划给予经费支持，资助一直持续至今，从而形成为国际认知科学联合会这一全球认知科学界的学术组织，     

Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study

This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review.     

The Problem of Peer Review is the Most Important Philosophical Problem

As philosophers we should have as one of our aims to produce as much philosophical knowledge as possible. A lot of potential philosophical knowledge is lost because of the flaws of the peer review system, and so a lot of philosophical knowledge would be gained were the system improved. Accordingly, as authors we should write papers about how to fix peer review, and as editors we should accept such papers if they are good. This paper presents some familiar problems with peer review, elaborates on and motivates the argument just given, and replies to some objections to it, making the case that fixing peer review is both a philosophical problem and one that admits of a solution.     

Scientific Peer Review: A Case Study From Local And Global Analyses.

The dialog between Staddon (2001, 2004) and Baum (2004) raises general questions about the nature of scientific peer review. Their dialog displays effects on peer review of differences of opinion about the relative merits of local and global analyses. Baum (1995, 1997, 2001, 2002) favors global analyses as a paradigm different, newer, and better than the local, dynamic, real‐time approach that plays a significant role in Staddon (2001). According to the Kuhnian perspective (Kuhn, 1996) Baum advocates, we can better understand his review of Staddon (2001) by considering the implications for it of his commitment to the idea that a global analysis is a superior scientific paradigm. This commentary examines some characteristics of local and global analyses, as well as some of their possible implications for peer review in the context of a reviewer's belief in the Kuhnian idea of incommensurability: According to this idea, a reviewer who either is, or who believes he is, from one paradigm is unlikely, for better or worse, to understand or perhaps even tolerate work from a different paradigm. It is recommended that a process be developed to encourage “truth in peer reviewing” to reduce possible conflicts of interest embedded in the current conception of scientific peer review.     

Peer review: Selecting the best science

The major challenge facing today’s biomedical researchers is the increasing competition for available funds. The competitive review process, through which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards grants, is built upon review by a committee of expert scientists. The NIH is firmly committed to ensuring that its peer review system is fair and objective. Wendy Baldwin, Ph.D., is Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health. This paper is based on a presentation at a workshop, “Advances in Peer Review Research”, American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting, Baltimore, MD, February 9, 1996.     

同伴排斥与青少年早期饮酒行为:同伴侵害和不良同伴的中介效应

采用同伴提名、同伴侵害问卷、不良同伴问卷和饮酒行为问卷调查广东地区4所普通初级中学1386名7年级学生,考察了同伴排斥与青少年早期饮酒行为的关系,以及同伴侵害和结交不良同伴在其中的链式中介效应。结果发现:(1)同伴排斥、同伴侵害和结交不良同伴均与青少年早期的饮酒行为呈显著正相关;(2)同伴侵害和结交不良同伴在同伴排斥影响青少年早期饮酒行为过程中的链式中介效应显著,即同伴排斥通过增加同伴侵害,从而提高结交不良同伴的风险,进而增加青少年早期的饮酒行为;(3)在控制同伴侵害和结交不良同伴后,同伴排斥对青少年早期的饮酒行为仍存在显著预测作用。     

综合医院临床研究伦理初始审查常见问题及对策研究

为了探究综合医院临床研究的受试者权益是否得到有效保护,以某综合医院机构开展的临床研究项目伦理初始审查材料为例,进行了回顾性研究。选取2018年~2019年笔者所在医院开展的临床科研伦理审查项目存档资料进行评估。结果发现,在67项申请伦理审查的项目中,提出修改意见的项目占53.7%,其中知情同意书占47.8%;项目申请的主要问题集中于研究目的、研究内容和风险告知。研究方案设计的科学性、公平性、目的明确性、伦理合理性、风险告知充分等是研究者伦理意识和能力的关键。研究者和伦理委员会的工作能力仍需进一步提高以保护受试者的权益。     

Peer review and innovation

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10–20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.