Nietzsche's place in nineteenth century German philosophy

I describe two ways of thinking about what constitutes a knowledgeable assertion – the ‘orthodox view’ and the ‘isomorphic view’. I argue that we should discard the orthodox view and replace it with the isomorphic view. The latter is more natural and has greater theoretical utility than the former.     

Gettier made ESEE

Previous research in experimental philosophy has suggested that moral judgments can influence the ordinary application of a number of different concepts, including attributions of knowledge. But should epistemologists care? The present set of studies demonstrate that this basic effect can be extended to overturn intuitions in some of the most theoretically central thought experiments in contemporary epistemology: Gettier cases. Furthermore, experiment 3 shows that this effect is unlikely to be mediated by a simple desire to blame, suggesting that a correct psychological account of ordinary knowledge attribution may include moral judgment.     

Friends at last? Distributed cognition and the cognitive/social divide

Distributed cognition (d-cog) claims that many cognitive processes are “distributed” across groups and the surrounding material and cultural environment. Recently, Nancy Nersessian, Ronald Giere, and others have suggested that a d-cog approach might allow us to bring together cognitive and social theories of science. I explore this idea by focusing on the specific interpretation of d-cog found in Edwin Hutchins' canonical text Cognition in the wild. First, I examine the scope of a d-cog approach to science, showing that there are important disputes between cognitive and social theorists on which d-cog remains silent. Second, I suggest that, where social explanations can be recast in d-cog terms, this reformulation will not be acceptable to all social theorists. Finally, I ask how we should make sense of the claim that, on a d-cog analysis, social factors are cognitive factors.     

A shortened version of Raven’s standard progressive matrices for children and adolescents

Numerous developmental studies assess general cognitive ability, not as the primary variable of interest, but rather as a background variable. Raven’s Progressive Matrices is an easy to administer non-verbal test that is widely used to measure general cognitive ability. However, the relatively long administration time (up to 45 min) is still a drawback for developmental studies as it often leaves little time to assess the primary variable of interest. Therefore, we used a machine learning approach – regularized regression in combination with cross-validation – to develop a short 15-item version. We did so for two age groups, namely 9 to 12 years and 13 to 16 years. The short versions predicted the scores on the standard full 60-item versions to a very high degree r = 0.89 (9–12 years) and r = 0.93 (13–16 years). We, therefore, recommend using the short version to measure general cognitive ability as a background variable in developmental studies.     

Meta-analysis of the reduced relative feedback frequency effect on motor learning and performance

A fundamental motor learning principle conveyed in textbooks is that augmented terminal feedback frequency differentially affects motor learning and performance. The guidance hypothesis predicts that relative to a reduced frequency of feedback, providing learners with feedback following every practice trial enhances practice performance but degrades subsequent motor learning. This change in effectiveness for each relative feedback frequency is called a reversal effect, and because it is thought that practice variables can have distinct impacts on learning and performance, delayed retention tests are considered the gold standard in motor learning research. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to a) synthesize the available evidence regarding feedback frequency, performance, and motor learning to test whether there are significant changes in effectiveness from acquisition and immediate retention to delayed retention, b) evaluate potential moderators of these effects, and c) investigate the potential influence of publication bias on this literature. We screened 1662 articles found in PubMed and PsycINFO databases as well as with reference tracing and a targeted author search. A final sample of 61 eligible papers were included in the primary analysis (k = 75, N = 2228). Results revealed substantial heterogeneity but no significant moderators, high levels of uncertainty, and no significant effect of reduced feedback frequency at any time point. Further, multilevel analyses revealed no evidence of a significant change in effect from acquisition or immediate retention to delayed retention. Z-curve analysis suggested the included studies were severely underpowered. These results suggest that robust evidence regarding feedback frequency and motor learning is lacking.     

What matters in scientific explanations: effects of elaboration and content

Given the breadth and depth of available information, determining which components of an explanation are most important is a crucial process for simplifying learning. Three experiments tested whether people believe that components of an explanation with more elaboration are more important. In Experiment 1, participants read separate and unstructured components that comprised explanations of real-world scientific phenomena, rated the components on their importance for understanding the explanations, and drew graphs depicting which components elaborated on which other components. Participants gave higher importance scores for components that they judged to be elaborated upon by other components. Experiment 2 demonstrated that experimentally increasing the amount of elaboration of a component increased the perceived importance of the elaborated component. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that elaboration increases the importance of the elaborated information by providing insight into understanding the elaborated information; information that was too technical to provide insight into the elaborated component did not increase the importance of the elaborated component. While learning an explanation, people piece together the structure of elaboration relationships between components and use the insight provided by elaboration to identify important components.     

The Quality Implementation Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process

Implementation science is growing in importance among funders, researchers, and practitioners as an approach to bridging the gap between science and practice. We addressed three goals to contribute to the understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of implementation. Our first goal was to provide a conceptual overview of the process of implementation by synthesizing information from 25 implementation frameworks. The synthesis extends prior work by focusing on specific actions (i.e., the “how to”) that can be employed to foster high quality implementation. The synthesis identified 14 critical steps that were used to construct the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF). These steps comprise four QIF phases: Initial Considerations Regarding the Host Setting, Creating a Structure for Implementation, Ongoing Structure Once Implementation Begins, and Improving Future Applications. Our second goal was to summarize research support for each of the 14 QIF steps and to offer suggestions to direct future research efforts. Our third goal was to outline practical implications of our findings for improving future implementation efforts in the world of practice. The QIF's critical steps can serve as a useful blueprint for future research and practice. Applying the collective guidance synthesized by the QIF to the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) emphasizes that accountability for quality implementation does not rest with the practitioner Delivery System alone. Instead, all three ISF systems are mutually accountable for quality implementation. Special Issue: Advances in Bridging Research and Practice Using the Interactive System Framework for Dissemination and Implementation; Guest Editors: Abraham Wandersman, Paul Flaspohler, Catherine A. Lesesne, Richard Puddy; Action Editor: Emilie Phillips Smith