Harry Daniels and Anne Edwards. (Eds.). (2004). the RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Psychology of Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harry Daniels and Anne Edwards. (Eds.). (2004). The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Psychology of Education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 348 pages. ISBN: 0-415-32768-7 (hardback); 0-415-32769-5 (paperback) This book is one of a series that includes eight RoutledgeFalmer Readers in education. The editors of compilation both professors at School of Education, University of Birmingham. This particular reader is a collection of previously published articles and book chapters. Of 16 chapters in book, 12 were previously published by Taylor & Francis Group (those on which editors were invited by publishers to draw largely). The dates of original publications range from 1988 to 2002. The book is organized into nine areas: assessment, language, motivation, cognition and development, intelligence, memory, cooperative learning, activity theory, and behaviour management. The first seven parts each consist of two chapters while last two parts each consist of one chapter. In introduction, editors explore complex and delicate two-way relationship (p. 1) between psychology and education. Through contributions they selected, they are trying to show how psychology and education shaping, and being shaped by, each other (p. 2). They assert, As social change demands educational change so educational change raises new questions for psychology. These questions may, and perhaps should, act to change conceptions and assumptions of psychology as it seeks to accommodate these new challenges, thus emphasizing that the of psychological knowledge is socially situated (p. 1), which is what chapters selected for book demonstrate. Further, editors state, We see psychology as a cultural artefact that may be used in analysis of educational problems and development (p. 2). For purposes of this review, I will focus on three chapters. The first is by Usha Goswami, Cognitive development: No stages please--we're British (pp. 184-202). Originally published in 2001, it begins with a discussion of Piaget's theory and moves into a description of how Researchers in UK have made a significant contribution to displacement of Piagetian perspective (p. 188) by a more broadly knowledge-based view of cognitive development. This is followed by exploration of three trends in late twentieth century: debate between domain-general versus domain-specific or modular theories of cognitive development; roles of nature versus nurture in cognitive development; and contributions of qualitative versus quantitative change to describing cognitive development. The author calls for an increasingly interdisciplinary and precisely specified approach to study of cognitive development (p. 195). Socializing intelligence by Lauren Resnick and Sharon Nelson-Le Gall (pp. 221-232), first published in 1997, explores a conception of intelligence based on cultural and developmental theories of Vygotsky, Piaget's constructivist theory, and theories of social and social competence. They argue that interpreting intelligence as a social practice requires a critical expansion of definition of construct to include skills and knowledge classically considered intelligence as well as a cluster of social performances such as asking questions, striving to master new problems and seeking help in problem solving (p. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".