STRATÉGIES COGNITIVES ET PROCESSUS D'AUTORÉGULATION CHEZ DES FAMILLES EN SITUATION DE RÉSOLUTION DE PROBLÈMES LOGIQUES*

The family is a fundamental learning environment for many basic skills such as the ability to solve everyday domestic problems. A lack of competence in this type of problem solving would expose the individual to more frustration and possibly create the conditions for greater aggression. Forty-two low SES families, each including an aggressive boy, were invited to the laboratory for a problem-solving session on two occasions, at an interval of two years. Subjects were asked to find four preset combinations of colours by systematic permutations of four colours using a computer. Three types of cognitive performance were examined: resolution strategies, autoregulation strategies and the success rate in finding the solution. Results showed that most of the families were consistent in their use of a non-systematic strategy. Although some improvement in planning is observed during the second testing, no other improvement in autoregulation strategies was observed. In general, families had a better rate of success in finding the solution in the second session. The low cognitive level of these families and its stability are discussed. Étant donné que la famille constitue un terrain privilégié d'apprentissage, l'aggressivité comportementale de certains enfants pourrait résider dans le peu d'opportunités offertes par leur famille d'apprendre à affronter les problèmes de la vie quotidienne d'une manière réfléchie. Quarante-deux familles de milieu socio-économique faible, dont un des enfants est à risque d'inadaptation sociale et dont les parents sont peu scolarisés, ont à résoudre un problème nécessitant l'intelligence logique et ce, à deux ans d'intervalle (T-1 et T-2). La tâche consite à résoudre un problème de permutations à quatre éléments et se présente sous la forme d'un jeu d'ordinateur. Le fonctionnement cognitif est examiné selon trois dimensions: les stratégies cognitivcs de résolution, les stratégies d'autorégulation exercées, sur la démarche cognitive et l'issue de la démarche cognitive. L'examen des stratégies cognitives révèle que la majorité des familles utilisent une approche non stratégique et que cette approche est maintenue aussi bien à l'intérieur d'une séance donnée que d'une séance à l'autre. Exception faite de l'amélioration relevée à la séance 2 quant au contrôle exercé par les familles sur le déroulement de leur démarche cognitive, aucun changement n'émerge sur les autres critères de l'autorégulation. Finalement, les familles obtiennent une meilleure performance à la deuxième séance. La discussion porte sur la relative stabilité du niveau de fonctionnement cognitif des familles ainsi que sur la pauvreté apparente de leur répertoire de schèmes.     

Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case

A number of cases of questionable behavior in science have been extensively reported in the media during the last two or three years. What standards are upheld by the scientific community affect the community internally, and also affect its relations with society at large, including Congress. Here I wish to address questions of scientific responsibility, using the Baltimore case as a concrete instance where they came up. The first part containing historical background is necessary to provide readers with documentation so that they can have some factual bases on which to evaluate respective positions and my conclusions that follow -- based on further but more succinctly summarized documentation. I have reproduced many quotes because I firmly believe people are entitled to be represented by their own wording. Conversely, I hold people accountable for their official positions. Some of these are reproduced in footnotes, and some longer ones are reproduced in appendices. I also do not ask to be trusted. By providing numerous references, I hope that readers who find my documentation insufficient can follow up by looking up these references.... The article is in six parts: Part I. Historical Background. This part gives mostly a historical background of the early phases of the Baltimore case. Part II. The First Issue of Responsibility. This part presents a discussion of certain scientific responsibilities based on that background, specifically: the responsibility of answering questions about one's work, and the responsibility whether to submit to authority. Part III. The NIH Investigations. This part summarizes the two NIH investigations. Part IV. The Dingell Subcommittee. This part deals with the responsibilities of a Congressional Committee vis-à-vis science. Part V. Further Issues of Responsibility. This part goes into an open ended discussion of many issues of responsibility facing scientists, vis-à-vis themselves and vis-à-vis society at large, including Congress. The list is long, and readers can look at the section and paragraph headings to get an idea of their content. Part VI. Personal Credibility, a Shift at the Grass Roots, and Baltimore's Persistence.