No description available.

No description available.

The success of many of our activities depends on how we learn to adapt cognitive control: Usually, we focus and redirect our behavior towards our objectives when facing a particularly challenging task or when irrelevant information activates a response that conflicts with our goals, while we relax and let events guide us when the task is familiar or undemanding. Although most of the theories defining cognitive control tend to describe it as a domain-general construct, several researchers posit that each task elicits different types of control adaptations, thus implying that the control adjustments learned in one task might be purely task-specific. Indeed, some studies failed to find a transfer of control preparation strategies between tasks, while others have even questioned whether individuals can prepare for response conflict overall. To provide clarification, this project aims to (1) understand whether people can learn to employ prior control demands to prepare for subsequent task’s demands and (2) understand whether control adaptation rules (or strategies) devised in one task are indeed task-specific, or they can be transferred to other paradigms. In summary, our results provide evidence of transfer of control adaptation rules between tasks requiring control, and maltransfer of these control strategies towards tasks that do not involve variations in control demands. Moreover, our findings suggest that control adaptations rely on potentially generalizable learning strategies, which can encompass both bottom-up associative learning and a top-down strategic proactive mechanism. Overall, the outcomes of this research project are consistent with a domain-general view of cognitive control adaptations.

College students rarely engage model-based epistemological reasoning about scientific data and evidence. The purpose of this study was to (1) investigate how scaffolding treatments influenced college students' epistemological reasoning about how data are used as evidence, (2) describe students' epistemological reasoning practice over the course of the study, (3) learn more about relationships among students' domain knowledge, epistemological beliefs about scientific knowledge, and epistemological reasoning, and (4) investigate how scaffolding for epistemological reasoning influences knowledge gain. Participants in this study consisted of three-hundred fifteen undergraduate students; all were juniors and seniors and all students were enrolled in one of two introductory genetics laboratory courses. Study participants included non-majors (Experiment 1, N =143) and majors (Experiment 2, N = 172). A partially mixed-methods sequential research design was used in this study; qualitative and quantitative phases were mixed during data analysis. A distributed scaffolding system was used in this study. All participants from each laboratory section were randomly assigned to one of three treatments; no scaffolds, domain-general scaffolds, or domain specific scaffolds. Study variables included domain knowledge, epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge, and epistemological reasoning, scaffolding treatment was the manipulated variable. Findings were: (1) Chi square analysis indicated no statistically significant differences in epistemological reasoning by scaffolding treatment; model-based reasoning was not observed in students' explanations; (2) Spearman rho indicated no change in epistemological reasoning over the course of the study, however, statistical significance was not reached, however, a repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction indicated a statistically significant within subjects change in epistemological reasoning, implications are discussed; (3) statistically significant bivariate correlations were found and (4) ANCOVA indicated pretest domain knowledge was a statistically significant covariate for posttest domain knowledge and a statistically significant main effect for scaffolding treatment was reached by Experiment 1 participants but not by Experiment 2 participants. Implications for instructional design and future research are discussed.

<p dir="ltr">Previous wok has established that multiple academic and cognitive skills can contribute to difficulty with mathematics (Bull & Lee, 2014; Morgan et al., 2019; Purpura Day et al., 2017; Schmitt et al., 2017). However, little is known about how using both domain-specific (i.e., numeracy) and domain-general skills (i.e., executive function (EF), language, vocabulary) can help to identify children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Given that an estimated 3% to 8% of children are diagnosed with a math related disability (Desoete et al., 2004) and even more children experience difficulties with mathematics, and that mathematics is an important predictor of academic and career success (Duncan et al., 2007; Watts, 2020) it is imperative to understand how both domain-specific and domain-general skills, along with key demographic factors, can be used to identify children at risk for future mathematics difficulties. <a href="" target="_blank">The current study utilized data from a longitudinal project that assessed children’s academic and cognitive skills over four time points: the fall and spring of preschool and kindergarten</a> in a state in the Midwest of the United States.The analytic sample for this study consisted of 674 children from three cohorts. <a href="" target="_blank">A person-centered latent profile analysis was used to generate profiles of early math learners using children’s early numeracy, math language, executive function (EF), literacy, and vocabulary skills. Based on the model fit statistics and interpretability, a six-profile solution emerged from the data.</a> The latent profile approach was compared to a variable-centered regression for identifying risk for mathematics difficulties. <a href="" target="_blank">Results</a> show that there is variability in performance profiles in a sample at the lower end of mathematics performance. This study <a href="" target="_blank">suggests that domain-general skills such as EF, literacy, and mathematical language skills can help to distinguish between different performance profiles of mathematics learners</a>. <a href="" target="_blank">Results also demonstrate that person-centered and variable-centered approaches should be used in conjunction with one-another to best identify children at risk for mathematics difficulties.</a></p>

No description available.

Evolutionary Psychology (EP) tends to be associated with a Massively Modular (MM) cognitive architecture. I argue that EP favors a non-MM cognitive architecture. The main point of dispute is whether central cognition, such as abstract reasoning, exhibits domain-general properties. Partisans of EP argue that domain-specific modules govern central cognition, for it is unclear how the cognitive mind could have evolved domain-generality. In response, I defend a distinction between exogenous and endogenous selection pressures, according to which exogenous pressures tend to select for domain-specificity, whereas the latter, endogenous pressures, select in favor of domain-generality. I draw on models from brain network theory to motivate this distinction, and also to establish that a domain-general, non-MM cognitive architecture is the more parsimonious adaptive solution to endogenous pressures.

This research develops and validates a task-specific parenting self-efficacy measure focussing on the following domains: showing affection and empathy, engaging in play, facilitating routines, establishing discipline strategies, providing appropriate learning and development activities, and promoting communication interaction. Self-efficacy can be described as a person’s belief in his or her ability to successfully complete tasks. Self-efficacy beliefs are among the most consistent predictors of success and performance in many contexts. As a result, self-efficacy has been investigated across a variety of domains. Parenting self-efficacy can be defined as judgement which a parent has regarding his or her ability to successfully complete the tasks related to parenting a child. Increasing parents’ competence in raising and supporting their children throughout life is regarded as one of the cornerstones of adaptive parenting. As improving parenting self-efficacy has been known to have a positive effect on parenting competence it has been incorporated as a component of early childhood intervention programmes in recent years. Numerous self-efficacy instruments are currently being used to measure self-efficacy within the parenting literature. In the development of this particular measure, challenges surrounding the conceptualization and operationalization of parenting self-efficacy have been investigated. The parenting sense of efficacy instrument (P-SEMI) was developed from theoretical frameworks within both parenting and self-efficacy domains. A classification for the definition and development of parenting self-efficacy measures is proposed. The relevant theoretical constructs are operationalized in order to identify their observable indicators (discrete parenting tasks). The main aim of this empirical research is therefore to validate the P-SEMI by establishing the internal consistency reliability, as well as face, content, construct, and differential validity for the measure. The design used is a descriptive survey type design with three phases. Phase 1 established validity in the conceptual domain. The measure was developed and content validity was investigated by a panel of subject matter experts. Phase 2 established validity in the methodological domain. During this phase the measure was administered to two groups of mothers; mothers of children with a disability, and mothers of typically developing children. Seventy-nine mothers participated in this phase of the study. Two additional established measures were used as convergent measures, namely the general self-efficacy scale (which is a global self-efficacy measure) and the parenting sense of competence scale (which is a domain-general measure). Based on the data collected from these participants, content, construct and differential validity was established. Phase 3 established initial validity in the substantive domain. Results indicated that the P-SEMI is a reliable and valid task-specific measure for assessing the level of parenting self-efficacy of mothers of young children. The P-SEMI is moderately correlated to both of the existing self-efficacy measures used as convergent measures. The newly developed task-specific measure was the only measure which was able to differentiate between the levels of parenting self-efficacy. As a result this measure is applicable as a clinical tool to measure parenting self-efficacy, and can be used to conduct further research within the field of parenting self-efficacy. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication / unrestricted

The aim of the diploma thesis is to observe the conceptual change in primary school students within the understanding of the market mechanism. On the basis of model situations, a diagnosis of children's understanding will be carried out, on which the didactic procedure will be made leading to the change of erroneous and incomplete ideas about the functioning of the market. On the basis of verifying the didactic procedure, recommendations will be presented for teaching the subject on primary school. KEY WORDS Conceptual change approach, domain-general theory, domain-specific theory, constructivism, qualitative pedagogical research

Les développements récents de la recherche en sciences cognitives ont établi que les individus détectent fréquemment qu'ils sont en train de commettre certaines erreurs de raisonnement, alors même qu'ils n'identifient pas, et peut-être ne peuvent pas identifier, la source de ces erreurs. Jusqu'à maintenant, ce programme de recherche a principalement visé à démontrer que même les individus aux raisonnements les plus biaisés faisaient preuve de tendances à la détection de conflits. Le présent travail s'appuie sur ces résultats et analyse trois domaines d'enquête connexes et encore inexplorés : (1) les sous-types de détection de conflits ; (2) les différences individuelles quant à la détection ; (3) le caractère de généralité ou de spécificité au domaine des sensibilités pour la détection de conflits. En identifiant des sous-types de détection de conflits de plus en plus spécifiques, ce projet a pour objectif d'examiner les corrélations entre, d'une part, certaines sensibilités pour la détection de conflits, et des prédicteurs cognitifs, d'autre part. Il s'agit, fondamentalement, d'un travail préparatoire en vue d'une analyse différentielle complète des sensibilités particulières de détection de conflits parmi les individus en train de raisonner. / Recent state of the art research into cognitive biases has revealed that individuals often detect that they are making certain reasoning errors even when they themselves do not, perhaps cannot, articulate the source of the error. Until now, this research has focused primarily on demonstrating the existence of conflict detection tendencies among even the most biased reasoners. This thesis builds on this research by analyzing three related and unexplored areas of inquiry: (1) subtypes of conflict detection; (2) individual-specific differences among detectors; and (3) the domain generality or specificity of conflict detection sensitivities. By identifying increasingly fine-tuned detection subtypes, the project aims to explore correlations between particular conflict detection sensitivities and other cognitive predictors. It is, essentially, preparatory work for a complete differential analysis of conflict detection sensitivities among reasoners.