项目反应理论原理与当前应用热点概览

本文首先分析了经典测验理论存在的局限,然后在潜在特质理论和项目特征曲线两大概念基础上阐述了项目反应理论及其基础模型的测量学原理,介绍了多个项目反应理论基础模型.最后简要介绍了七项当前应用项目反应理论指导大型题库建设和指导编制各种新型测验的热点内容.     

Self-Other Discrepancies in Waiting Time Decisions

Both anecdotal evidence and recently reported research suggest that people are risk-averse when faced with waiting time decisions. Four studies investigate whether there is a self-other discrepancy in how people make waiting time decisions themselves and how they predict others will make similar decisions. People are found to believe that others have valuations of time similar to their own. However, when faced with alternatives that involve risk in the duration of the wait, the results point to a self-other discrepancy, in that people report greater risk-aversion themselves than they think others would. Further, when faced with waiting time gains, people are themselves more risk-averse than they think others would be. Conversely, when faced with waiting time losses, people are themselves more risk-seeking than they think others would be. Overall, the results are consistent with the recently proposed risk-as-feelings hypothesis.     

临床医学与人文素质

遗传研究已经测定出人类基因序列,人的克降技术如此完备,克隆人呼之欲出。但是,人类并没有因为高科技而摆脱身心的负担,反而更为焦虑。人类受自身生物结构的限制,对世界的了解借科学的发展而发展,因而对世界的认识既受限制,又无止境,临床医学更加需要人文主义精神,要求医生把病人更多地看作是社会的人,有着非常复杂的心理需要,而不仅仅是生物学意义上的人。临床医生的人文素质培养和要求是当务之急。     

样例的子目标编码对新问题解决中原理通达的作用

通过 3个实验 ,分别研究了样例的不同编码对消除由于表面概貌和表面对应变化对原理通达带来的消极影响的作用以及样例学习中原例概化的形成阶段。实验结果表明 :样例解题步骤的子目标编码有助于消除由于表面内容变化对原理通达带来的消极影响 ;子目标学习使学习者在样例学习阶段就形成了关于原理的概化。     

公共行政伦理价值定位与规范体系

加强公共行政伦理建设,是加强政风建设、建设廉洁勤政务实高故政府、建设高素质公务员队伍的基本途径。因此,必须对公共行政伦理进行价值定位,借鉴国外公共行政伦理建设的经验,建构中国当代公共行政伦理的规范体系。     

关于克隆人试验与伦理学的三原则

由于克隆人试验的对象是人的活细胞,不是人的胚胎;并且由于人只能有限地决定自己的未来,根本无法决定自己的出生;同时由于基因诊断和修复有助于新生儿的健康,因而克隆人试验既不会伤害任何人的生命体,也不会侵犯任何可能出现的克隆人的自主权和平等权,进而不会违反伦理学的三原则。     

对以边沁、密尔为代表的功利主义的分析批判

边沁的功利主义为苦乐原理、效果论和功利原则这样三个理论基点所构成。这是一个有着内在逻辑困境的三原理。苦乐原理由于没有进行内在的质的区分,为密尔所修正,但密尔的修正突出了苦乐原理与效果论的内在不一致;同时,密尔以自我牺牲来补充功利主义,又暴露了功利主义原则的内在矛盾。还有,密尔以平等权利来为功利主义的最大幸福原理辩护,恰恰表明功利原则并非是可以成为一个理论的基础性原则或终极原则。斯马特的行动功利主义则进一步暴露了功利主义的非正义性特性。功利主义的这样三个典范表明仅仅诉诸功利原则无从走出内在逻辑困境。布兰特援引认知理论以及道义论原则,笔认为这才使功利主义从其困境中走出。     

Science and Religion: Getting Ready for the Future

I explore three challenges for the current dialogue between science and religion: the challenges from hermeneutics, feminisms, and postmodernisms. Hermeneutics, defined as the practice and theory of interpretation and understanding, not only deals with questions of interpreting texts and data but also examines the role and use of language in religion and in science, but it should not stop there. Results of the post‐Kuhnian discussion are used to exemplify a wider range of hermeneutical issues, such as the ideological potential of scientific concepts, the dynamics of interdisciplinarity, and the significance of the socioeconomic situatedness of science and religion. Feminist research analyzes the consequences of the interplay of masculine, feminine, and gender typologies in religion and science. Examples from the history of science as well as current scientific conceptualizations indicate that beliefs in the inferiority of woman form part of our inherited scientific, religious, and metaphysical framework. It is argued that postmodernism in its most constructive form shares the best fruits of modernity, especially of the Enlightenment, while avoiding some of its most serious mistakes. In conclusion, reflecting on the three publics engaged in the dialogue between science and religion—academe, religious communities, and societies—I offer constructive suggestions and critical observations concerning the future of this dialogue.     

Reasonable reasons for waiting

Recent decision‐making research claims to establish that, in violation of Savage's normative sure‐thing principle, individuals often wait to acquire noninstrumental information and subsequently base their decisions upon this information. The current research suggests that characterizing individuals as pursuing noninstrumental or useless information may be overstated. Through a series of experiments we establish, first, that many people choose to wait, even when waiting provides no additional information at all. Second, the longer people are allowed to wait before having to decide, the more people prefer to wait rather than decide immediately. Third, those individuals who choose to wait are the ones less confident about committing themselves to a decision. For them, the benefit from waiting may be especially valuable by allowing them to come to terms with a less‐than‐ideal decision. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.