The practice of science entails more than just repeated cycles of theory construction, hypothesis generation, and empirical investigation. Broader, metatheoretical levels of conceptualization necessarily condition all aspects of the research process, establishing the very meaning and sensibility of science’s empirical and theoretical activities. When debate arises at these metatheoretical levels, it is the subject of conceptual analysis, not empirical investigation. In this article, we examine the overarching metatheoretical divide that lies at the heart of many key theoretical debates in science: the divide between a Cartesian-Split-Mechanistic research paradigm and a Process-Relational research paradigm. We instantiate this divide in terms of three prominent domains of inquiry within developmental science: the study of epigenesis (including epigenetics); the study of embodiment, specifically embodied cognition; and the study of baselines for human nature and development. We reveal how core issues and theoretical debates within these domains derive from metatheoretical, not theoretical, points of contention.

Metatheory and the Primacy of Conceptual Analysis in Developmental Science

This research was aimed to find out: (1) the relationship between students’ critical thinking skills with students’ achievement; (2) the relationship between students’ learning motivation with students’ achievement; and (3) the relationship between students’ critical thinking skills and learning motivation with learning achievement in learning about buffer solution. This was a quantitative research with a correlational approach. The populations were 178 students at eleventh grade science program from SMA Negeri 6 (senior high school) in Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia, academic year of 2019/2020.. One class with 36 students was selected sample by using cluster random sampling. The data were obtained through a multiple-choice test about critical thinking skills, a multiple-choice test about the buffer solution topic, and a questionnaire about students’ learning motivation. The data were analyzed by using Pearson Product Moment correlation, multiple correlations, and multiple regression analysis. The results showed that: (1) A positive and significant relationship between students’ critical thinking skills with students’ achievement was found, as shown by the correlation coefficient value of 0.871; (2) A positive and significant relationship between students’ learning motivation with their achievement was found, as shown by the correlation coefficient value of 0.884; and (3) A positive relationship between students’ critical thinking skills and learning motivation with their learning achievement, as shown by correlation coefficient value of 0.931. Regression analysis obtained the equation of Y = 10,416 + 0.423 X1 + 0.487 X2, and the value of coefficient determination was 0.845 or 84.5%.

The relationship between critical thinking skills and students learning motivation with students’learning achievement about buffer solution in eleventh grade science program

In this article I explore some of the arguments pertaining to word-structure used by the nativists to bolster the idea that language is part of our genetic endowment. The focal point of this analysis will centre primarily on the arguments put forth by Steven Pinker in his various works, regarding the morphological constraints supposedly imposed on language by our genetically hard-wired language faculty. Peter Gordon’s work on English compounding will also be critically evaluated. I contend that these allegedly innate constraints are wrongly construed as such, and can easily be explained without postulating a ‘language acquisition device’, as contingent cultural and environmental factors suffice when trying to explain the morphological phenomena Pinker believes can only be explained by the innate constraints of universal grammar. Hence, this strand of the nativist’s paradigm needs to be seriously re-evaluated as the original conclusions drawn by theorists like Pinker and Gordon are flawed. Introduction Linguistic nativism has been built on an edifice ranging from armchair philosophical argumentation to rigorous empirical data. There are numerous strands of nativism, but the focus here is on word-structure, and on how influential scholars like Steven Pinker have bolstered their case for linguistic innateness with reference to the phenomenon of how phenomena such as derivational and inflexional morphology are constrained by a genetically hard-wired language faculty. Peter Gordon (1986) argues along similar lines, citing research done on compound words, claiming that innate restrictions preclude the compounding of morphologically complex modifiers. Though this argument is only one strand of a particular theory with an increasingly parochial following, it is still a paradigm that is followed by the majority of linguistics scholars around the world. The concern here is that the mind-set that accompanies a theory of this kind can have negative consequences. In Grein and Weigand (2007), for example, Geoffrey Sampson explores some of the contentious upshots regarding a theory that tries to homogenise mankind, while ignoring the disparities. Language policy has also been informed the world over by this way of thinking. The belief is that if things as detailed as the rules pertaining to word-structure are part of a child’s innate machinery, then the educator’s role is merely to elicit this innate knowledge. This may have contributed to the rationale behind the failed outcomes-based education curriculum, which sees the teacher as a ‘facilitator’ who is not meant to teach, but merely to stimulate the expression of what is already innately there. In the pedagogical context of teaching English as a foreign language, adherents to the critical period hypothesis believe that teachers’ jobs only ought to entail helping their students/learners to ‘get by’ in the target language by aiming for a basic level of communicative competence. This aim is because educators are trained in a paradigm based on the belief that it is impossible to attain native speaker competence after a certain age – this is a biologically constrained phenomenon (cf. Lenneberg, [1967], on whose work Chomsky draws and which he explicitly endorses). The various strands of nativism alluded to here are used to inform policies that are damaging to the country; linguistic pedagogy draws on theoretical underpinnings in linguistics, 7 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) Vol.3, Issue 1, March 2013 and aside from the pedagogical implications of the theory, the nativist paradigm is taking linguistics as a whole away from its scientific standing in the academic world. Scholars such as Gordon (1986) and Pinker (1994; 1999) argue that phenomena such as compounding rules and the rules pertaining to morphological concatenation are not logically necessary, making their alleged ubiquity not only contingent, but in need of explanation. As mentioned, Gordon and Pinker explain the morphological restrictions found in their data by postulating a universal grammar that is part of our biological endowment. This article serves to re-evaluate this strand of linguistic innateness by pointing out the false predictions Pinker, Gordon (and others of their ilk) make with regard to morphology, and in light of that counterevidence, proffer an explanation that is more commonsensically commensurable. Hence, this article calls for a paradigmatic re-evaluation of linguistic nativism as a whole. Nativism should either be more answerable to conspicuous counter-evidence, or embrace a theory that is more amenable to the counter-evidence shown in conflicting data. The case for innate morphological constraints Pinker (1994) claims that the restrictions pertaining to the structure of words lend evidence to nativism in the sense that children’s minds seem to be designed with the logic of word-structure built in. His first example is that of a pattern whereby the derivational affix can attach only to roots, not to stems (i.e. roots with at least one affix attached). When we try to attach a derivational affix to a stem, we get something like Darwinsian, which could refer to the works of Charles Darwin and his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. However, this would sound ridiculous, not because it is illogical, but because there seems to be some sort of innate restriction on what affix can go where in a word. Later Pinker says that the restriction is that derivational suffixes cannot attach themselves to inflected roots. Pinker (1999) discusses headless compound words, and draws conclusions that provide further evidence for his case. An example of a headed compound would be “barman”, with the -man part constituting the head. Hence, a “barman” is a kind of man, namely one that works in bars. Headless compounds are words like “walkman”. Here, -man cannot be the head because a “walkman” is neither a kind of man, nor is it a kind of walk, even though the rightmost morpheme is usually defined as the head of a compound. Pinker (1994; 1999) explains that when a compound has a head, all the information regarding the head gets percolated up to the top-most node of the (morphological) tree, including the rules. When there is a headless compound, it is not clear where the information must come from, so the “percolation conduits” get blocked, and the default rule applies. That is the reason why we say “sabre-tooths” and “still-lifes”, not “sabre-teeth” and “still-lives” (Pinker, 1999; 1994). Other research cited by Pinker includes Peter Gordon’s experiment with three-year-olds, commonly referred to as the “Jabba experiment” (Gordon, 1986). He showed them a puppet and said: “This is Jabba. Jabba eats mice. Jabba is a ___?”, to which the children replied: “Mice-eater”. Thereafter, he asked: “Jabba also eats rats. Jabba is also a ___?”, to which they replied: “Rat eater”. Now, Gordon asks, why do they use the plural “mice”, but not the plural “rats”? Given that not a single child ever used the inflected plural as the initial constituent of the compound, this could indicate that there is some sort of rule that they are applying. It is unlikely that they were told that this is so, as Motherese contains few or no compounds, especially of that kind; it is also unlikely that someone would have told them not to include inflected words in their compounds. Why do they not generalise the rule: “Create a compound by putting two words together”? Why should there be a restriction of this sort? Nativists like Gordon and Pinker would explain it as 8 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) Vol.3, Issue 1, March 2013 follows: If there were an innate rule of this kind to facilitate language acquisition, the child would already ‘know’ some of the things that cannot be said, like including an inflected word in the first part of a compound word, which is obviously why they avoid constructions of this sort. Gordon concludes that these results were interesting because there seemed to be a consistent restriction in terms of what kind of word was allowed to be in the first part of a compound word. “Mice-eater”, for example, was an acceptable form to them; their answer to the first question would be just that. However, they never answered “rats-eater” to the second question; they always answered “rat-eater”. This is interesting, because if one goes solely on logic, then “ratseater” ought not to be precluded, since “mice” and “rats” are both plural forms, and both (equally) morphologically complex. The question, then, that Gordon posed is: What exactly makes forms like “rats-eater” ungrammatical? The reason he postulated was that the form “rats” is clearly derived from a rule: rat + -s. The word “mice”, however, is not; despite its morphological complexity, the word is learnt as a listeme, and therefore treated as such by the lexicon. Hence, “mice” in “mice-eater” is treated by the phonology as a simplex word. This, Gordon claims, must be an innate constraint placed on us by universal grammar, and we have fairly good reason to assume this, given that children as young as three consistently do it. There are problems with this claim, however, since there are languages that do exactly that which is claimed by Gordon to be universally excluded by an innate constraint. German, for example, makes use of regular plural forms in compounds. Consider the set of data in the table below:1 Table 1: English and German compound words English compound German translation 1) Mice-eater Mäusefresser 2) Rat-eater Rattenfresser 3) Butterfly-eater Schmetterling(s)fresser 4) Insect-eater Insektenfresser 5) Cat-eater Katzenfresser 6) Flower-eater Blumenfresser 7) People-eater Menschenfresser 8) Tree-eater Bäumefresser 9) Sheep-eater Schaf(s)fresser 10) Fish-eater Fischfresser In German, -e(n) represents the plural suffix. To clarify, Table 2 shows the singular/plural forms of the (German) words used in the data above: 1 Data gathered by me from a nat

/pdf/modern-journal-of-language-teaching-methods-mjltm-1fslmun1sk.pdf

Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

To make judgments about research findings, one must have a baseline against which to compare the results. One of the baselines the field of psychology should use is what is normal or typical for humanity as a species. Humanity emerged from the social mammalian line with many similar basic needs. Human infants are born highly immature and require an intensive “nest” to grow properly. However, modern industrialized societies often do not provide humanity’s evolved nest, thereby undermining optimal normal development in their citizens. Yet, scientific psychologists, who assess citizens in these societies, assume they are studying typical members of the human species. But human beings are extensively shaped by postnatal experience, expected experience that the evolved nest provides. Humanity’s evolved nest has been a characteristic of virtually all societies until recently. Industrialized nations typically do not provide the evolved nest, leading to underdevelopment of human species characteristics which include cooperative sociality and nature connection, contributing to the current destructiveness of modern humans toward one another and the planet. We make several suggestions for how to realign psychological science to include the multi-disciplinary knowledge needed to understand humanity and the development of human nature. We recommend that psychology take seriously the evolved nest and assist parents and policymakers in its provision. Our future may depend on it. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Every responsible science is careful to establish baselines for the phenomenon under study. In psychology, baselines are usually coupled with assumptions about what is typical human behavior in a particular domain. We note the limitations of current methods for establishing baselines and suggest that a broader, transdisciplinary and metatheoretical approach is needed. Applied to human wellbeing, measurement is not a matter of applying techniques, but requires taking into account evolution, ethology, anthropology as well as other information that helps us establish baselines for species-typical human development. Human beings are biosocial creatures, highly malleable postnatally and dynamically shaped by experience, co-constructed by caregivers and the community and for which humanity evolved an intensive developmental system or niche. Humanity’s evolved developmental niche or nest should be a factor in determining baselines. Members of current industrialized nations may not provide the best source for baselines in part because they usually are raised in a species-atypical manner (outside humanity’s evolved nest unnested). Among our suggestions, we advise that history/ systems theory and a transdisciplinary approach be included in the psychology curriculum; that complexity be embraced; This article was published December 13, 2018. Darcia Narvaez, Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame; David Witherington, Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico. This article is part of the special section “Heterodox Issues in Psychology.” The guest editor for this section is Scott O. Lilienfeld. We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for making excellent comments and suggestions to improve the article. The first author would like to thank the “Developing Virtue in The Practice of Science” project and the “Self, Motivation and Virtue” project, both funded by the Templeton Religion Trust. Copyright of this manuscript belongs to the author(s). The author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish this manuscript first, identify itself as the original publisher, and claim all commercial exploitation rights. Upon publication, the manuscript is available to the public to copy, distribute, or display under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. Please use APA’s Online Permissions Process (Rightslink®) at http://www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright/seek-permission.aspx to request commercial reuse of this content. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Darcia Narvaez, Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: dnarvaez@nd.edu Archives of Scientific Psychology 2018, 6, 205–213 © 2018 The Author(s) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000053 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc that authors’ assumptions about humanity be disclosed in publications; that the degree of participant “nestedness” be reported by researchers. Now that neuroscience is confirming its importance, we suggest that the field of psychology attend to the evolved nest for raising human beings, advising parents and policymakers on its provision. Providing the evolved nest is a matter of ethics and may be vital for keeping the species from self and planetary destruction.

Getting to baselines for human nature, development, and wellbeing.

Despite the importance of design thinking, there has been little research on interdisciplinary augmentation and the cleararticulation of cognitive domain effects is still missing. The present study explores students’ perceptions of and experiences incritical thinking and students’ creative design ability in different study disciplines and explores correlations between students’attitudes and beliefs towards critical thinking and their design thinking ability. A sample of 268 students aged 21–23 years wascollected. The students’ majors include preservice technology and engineering teachers’ education, chemical engineering, electricaland computer engineering, and mechanical engineering. For all subjects, critical thinking and design thinking are consideredimportant interdisciplinary capabilities. Our findings suggest that the students’ critical thinking might markedly affect their creativedesign ability. The ways in which each discipline is taught can be transferred across different knowledge and skill domains. Wefound that the most creative designers are mechanical engineering students, especially in terms of the originality and usefulness ofdesign, while their divergent thinking ability might be improved with methods used in technology and engineering teachereducation. Electrical and computer engineering students can benefit when interdisciplinary methods for improving understandingare applied as evidenced by the chemical and mechanical engineering curriculum. We also suggest that female students, whodominate in divergent thinking and critical thinking, might improve team learning and decision-making where transferable skillscan be enhanced along with pedagogical content knowledge. These findings have implications for interdisciplinary innovationlearning and creative design assessment.

Interdisciplinary critical and design thinking

Thought and Knowledge

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Norman Malcolm

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Thought and Knowledge