学前儿童对疾病的认知

通过三个研究分别探查了教育条件不同的两组学前儿童能否以疾病这一生命现象为指标做出生物和非生物的本体区分;他们是否理解疾病的产生和康复不受心理意图控制;以及他们对疾病原因的认识。结果显示,3、4、5岁学前儿童在分类作业中的认知成绩随年龄逐渐提高,他们能够认识疾病不受意图控制。其对疾病原因的解释既不用意图也不用道德准则,而主要是从行为水平,表现出“朴素生物学”的认知,但其认知与成人的认知和科学的生物学概念有明显差距。教育条件影响儿童的疾病认知成绩     

儿童对生物目的指向性的认知发展

目的指向性是生物的基本特征,是区分生物和非生物的重要指标。学前儿童能否根据目的指向性来区分生物与非生物,主要有3种观点：能区分、不能区分、认为学前儿童只能理解动物具有目的指向性,但不能理解植物的目的指向性。该文分层综述了学前儿童对生物包括人、动物和植物目的指向性的认知及学前儿童对不熟悉物体目的指向性的归因研究,并提出了需要进一步探讨的问题。     

4~7岁儿童依据对繁殖的朴素理解区分植物和非生物的认知发展

以152名4~7岁儿童为被试,采用访谈和判断选择任务探查他们对植物繁殖的认知。结果发现,①4~7岁儿童对植物繁殖的认知可分为不理解、部分理解和确切理解三种水平,儿童在入学后7岁能依据对植物繁殖的朴素理解区分植物与非生物;②通过降低材料难度和任务形式要求的难度,可以有效地发掘年幼儿童的认知潜能,即大部分6岁学前儿童就能够理解植物繁殖;③任务难度的改变对处于部分理解水平的5、6儿童影响更为显著：使他们在选择任务上的认知成绩优于访谈任务,对有明显果实和种子植物的认知优于无明显果实和种子植物的认知     

小学低年级儿童的计算流畅性与数学焦虑:基于变量为中心与个体为中心的分析

为考察计算流畅性对小学低年级儿童数学焦虑的影响及作用机制,对592名小学二年级儿童的计算流畅性、数学学习兴趣、教师支持和数学焦虑进行测查。结果发现:(1)计算流畅性不仅通过数学学习兴趣间接影响数学焦虑,也可通过数学学习兴趣进而通过教师支持间接影响数学焦虑;(2)对计算流畅性和数学学习兴趣得分进行潜剖面分析,可将儿童区分为三种类型:低能力-低兴趣型、高能力-高兴趣型和低能力-高兴趣型;(3)低能力-低兴趣型儿童的数学焦虑得分显著高于其他两类,而低能力-高兴趣型和高能力-高兴趣型儿童的数学焦虑得分则无显著差异。上述结果表明计算流畅性、数学学习兴趣和教师支持在预防和干预小学低年级儿童的数学焦虑中具有重要作用。     

Biology as Politics: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Lewontin and Levins

Lewontin and Levins's contributions are viewed from four angles: a more vigorous culture of science criticism; a visible college of Marxist scientists in the USA; inquiries into the diverse social influences shaping science; and motivating readers who want to pursue their science as a political project. Indirect contributions—influences on and appropriations by other actors in the wider realm of biology as politics—are discussed as well as the more direct effects.     

WHITEHEAD,CHANCE, AND THE IMMANENTLY CREATIVE SPIRIT

In this essay, it is argued that God through the Spirit is both the immanent and eminent principle of creativity, ever wooing and empowering the advancements in complexity within biological evolution. I argue herein also that God, particularly in and through the activity of the Spirit of creativity, was fully present in and with and under what is oft called “creation,” from the very beginning of created time—and will be to the end of time, proleptically present as the expression of the principle of creativity. I maintain that the Spirit, by her kenosis into the natural world, imbibed the nature with an evolving fertility that has continually manifested itself in and through the increases of complexity in the natural environ. This primal imbibing of herself into the world of nature caused the world to become marked by what principally amounts to an activation of the naturally occurring, inherent potentialities within nature, thereby producing a distinctive self‐creativity within the world. Somewhat akin to Peirce, who said that we need a “thorough‐going evolutionism or none,” I contend that we need a thoroughly immanent God or none, all the while noting that both immanent creativity and self‐creativity are marks of this overall poietic process known as biotic evolution.     

The mind beyond our immediate awareness: Freudian, Jungian, and cognitive models of the unconscious

Abstract: Several branches of cognitive science now focus on the nature of the unconscious. This paper explores some of the findings and models from this research. By introducing formulations based on non‐clinical data, the cognitive scientists—in neural linguistics, computational modelling, and neuroscience—may depart from the older psychoanalytic formulations. An understanding of unconscious neural processes is nevertheless emerging showing how synapses are modified by experience and how learning, conscious and unconscious, is due to this important aspect of brain plasticity. Freud and Jung's formulations about the unconscious psyche, representing the main tenets of depth psychology, are also based on a conception of the mind as extending beyond immediate awareness. However, their models are more hypothetical in that their data, almost exclusively, come from treatments of psychotherapy patients and their verbal accounts. So how do these two conceptions of the unconscious match, where do they differ? And how does the neural understanding in the present research support theories and practices of analytic treatments?