How Do Students Learn Theology?

This paper explores the way students learn theology through a small qualitative research project. It is undertaken in conversation with current higher education learning theory. This learning theory suggests that it is important to discover how a student conceptualizes learning and how they perceive the teaching environment. Students interviewed increasingly spoke of the value of this academic or more cognitive side of learning as they learned “deep approaches.” Important in this movement to deep, transformational learning was the presence of a relational teaching environment in which peers and teachers played a crucial role. This present study offers support to the view that the tradition of the learning community remains important for deploying deep approaches to the learning of theology in higher education. The paper argues that these relational principals of teaching and learning remain important in the face of the increased use of technology‐based tools and other pedagogical challenges to theological education today.     

Do Children Understand Iconic Gestures About Events as Early as Iconic Gestures About Entities?

Children can understand iconic co-speech gestures that characterize entities by age 3 (Stanfield et al. in J Child Lang 40(2):1–10, 2014; e.g., “I’m drinking” \(+\) tilting hand in C-shape to mouth as if holding a glass). In this study, we ask whether children understand co-speech gestures that characterize events as early as they do so for entities, and if so, whether their understanding is influenced by the patterns of gesture production in their native language. We examined this question by studying native English speaking 3- to 4 year-old children and adults as they completed an iconic co-speech gesture comprehension task involving motion events across two studies. Our results showed that children understood iconic co-speech gestures about events at age 4, marking comprehension of gestures about events one year later than gestures about entities. Our findings also showed that native gesture production patterns influenced children’s comprehension of gestures characterizing such events, with better comprehension for gestures that follow language-specific patterns compared to the ones that do not follow such patterns—particularly for manner of motion. Overall, these results highlight early emerging abilities in gesture comprehension about motion events.     

Why Do Only Some Events Cause Learning During Human Tutoring?

Developers of intelligent tutoring systems would like to know what human tutors do and which activities are responsible for their success in tutoring. We address these questions by comparing episodes where tutoring does and does not cause learning. Approximately 125 hr of tutorial dialog between expert human tutors and physics students are analyzed to see what features of the dialog are associated with learning. Successful learning appears to require that the student reach an impasse. When students were not at an impasse, learning was uncommon regardless of the tutorial explanations employed. On the other hand, once students were at an impasse, tutorial explanations were sometimes associated with learning. Moreover, for different types of knowledge, different types of tutorial explanations were associated with learning different types of knowledge.     

How Do Children Stigmatize People With Mental Illness?

A way to promote eliminating stigma surrounding mental illnesses is targeting the phenomenon in children. This study's purpose is to validate models of mental illness stigma on children in Grades 6–8. Children completed the revised Attribution Questionnaire in a pretest of a larger study on a mental health education program. Data from this study permitted testing of roles of demographics in these social cognitive models. Subsequent analyses using manifest model structural equations were mixed, but mostly showed adequate fit for multiple versions of the models. These results suggest that models of blame and dangerousness are relevant to the way 10 to 13-year-olds stigmatize mental illness. Demographics were not found to fit these models satisfactorily. Implications of these findings for stigma-change agenda are discussed.     

Who Wants to Learn Forever? Hyperbole and Difficulty with Lifelong Learning

This paper addresses the issue of how lifelonglearning, globalisation and capitalism arerelated within late modernity. It is criticalof the argument that there is now anincreasingly homogenous global economy that isknowledge based and that unambiguously requiresa high level of cognitive skills in itsworkers. The idea that globalisation producessuch rapid changes in the world of work thatlearning must be ongoing to cope with it ischallenged.It is argued that the key issue forpolicy-makers concerned to encourage lifelonglearning is funding the provision of thoselearning opportunities that would otherwise notbe available. People can learn many worthwhilethings at work, at home and elsewhere ininformal associations. It makes little sense toduplicate the opportunity to learn those thingsformally or even in many cases, formally todistinguish such learning from living andworking.     

Do Young Children Really Learn Best From the use of Direct Address in Children’s Television?

A large body of research has considered children’s novel word learning from video; however, no known work has compared children’s novel word learning from an educational television show in which the character speaks directly to the child (participatory cues) and a show in which the child overhears two characters speaking to one another (third-party joint attention). Using two professionally produced videos that mimic contemporary children’s television shows, we conducted a 2-condition experiment (N = 73) to examine under which condition children were better able to learn a novel word. Results indicated a main effect of condition and age: children in the participatory cues condition and older children demonstrated greater word learning than children in the third-party joint attention condition and younger children. There was an interaction between age and condition, but only among children between the ages of 28.20 and 41.46 months. These findings demonstrate that the participatory cues model, typically used in children’s television programming, is a better model to use to promote children’s word learning. These findings run counter to a similar study that used stimulus videos that did not mimic a children’s program, finding that the third-party joint attention condition was more effective.     

Plans or Outcomes: How Do We Attribute Intelligence to Others?

Humans routinely make inferences about both the contents and the workings of other minds based on observed actions. People consider what others want or know, but also how intelligent, rational, or attentive they might be. Here, we introduce a new methodology for quantitatively studying the mechanisms people use to attribute intelligence to others based on their behavior. We focus on two key judgments previously proposed in the literature: judgments based on observed outcomes (you're smart if you won the game) and judgments based on evaluating the quality of an agent's planning that led to their outcomes (you're smart if you made the right choice, even if you didn't succeed). We present a novel task, the maze search task (MST), in which participants rate the intelligence of agents searching a maze for a hidden goal. We model outcome-based attributions based on the observed utility of the agent upon achieving a goal, with higher utilities indicating higher intelligence, and model planning-based attributions by measuring the proximity of the observed actions to an ideal planner, such that agents who produce closer approximations of optimal plans are seen as more intelligent. We examine human attributions of intelligence in three experiments that use MST and find that participants used both outcome and planning as indicators of intelligence. However, observing the outcome was not necessary, and participants still made planning-based attributions of intelligence when the outcome was not observed. We also found that the weights individuals placed on plans and on outcome correlated with an individual's ability to engage in cognitive reflection. Our results suggest that people attribute intelligence based on plans given sufficient context and cognitive resources and rely on the outcome when computational resources or context are limited.     

Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Children and Adolescents: How Do Girls Differ From Boys?

Disruptive behavior disorders in children and adolescents can lead to a lifetime of problems. The 2 disruptive behavior disorders identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM‐IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) are oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. Although much research has been conducted to learn more about these 2 disorders, little is known about gender differences in the disorders. There is a dearth of specific information regarding girls with disruptive behavior disorders. This article discusses the diagnosis, risk factors, and treatment of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder while incorporating information specific to girls to investigate how disruptive behavior disorders differ for girls.     

Do Conditional Hypotheses Target Rare Events?

When testing hypotheses, rare or unexpected observations are normatively more informative than common observations, and recent studies have shown that participants' behavior reflects this principle. Research has also shown that, when asked to test conditional hypotheses (“If X, then Y”) that are abstract or unfamiliar, participants overwhelmingly consider a supporting observation mentioned in the hypothesis (X&Y) to be more informative than a supporting observation not mentioned (XY). These two empirical findings would mesh well if conditional hypotheses tend to be phrased in terms of rare, rather than common, events. Six experiments are reported indicating that people do have a tendency—often a very strong one—to phrase conditional hypotheses in terms of rare events. Thus, observations mentioned in conditional hypotheses might generally be considered highly informative because they usually are highly informative.     

Do Dynamic Facial Expressions Convey Emotions to Children Better Than Do Static Ones?

Past research has shown that children recognize emotions from facial expressions poorly and improve only gradually with age, but the stimuli in such studies have been static faces. Because dynamic faces include more information, it may well be that children more readily recognize emotions from dynamic facial expressions. The current study of children (N = 64, aged 5–10 years old) who freely labeled the emotion conveyed by static and dynamic facial expressions found no advantage of dynamic over static expressions; in fact, reliable differences favored static expressions. An alternative explanation of gradual improvement with age is that children's emotional categories change during development from a small number of broad emotion categories to a larger number of narrower categories—a pattern found here with both static and dynamic expressions.