Martin G. Erikson

A taxonomy of motives to cite.

In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.

The possible selves of women with Anorexia nervosa

Adopting the construct of possible selves, which are conceptions of our selves in future situations, the objective of this study was to investigate how anorexia patients differ from a non-clinical control group in their conceptions of the future on qualitative content, and the four quantitative dimensions positive and negative emotional valence, and beliefs about probability and controllability. The Possible Selves Statements Test was employed. Participants presented 14 possible selves by completing the question “I can see myself …” and rating each possible self on the 4 dimensions. The patients reported a larger number of negative possible selves, with higher negative valence, often seeing future everyday situations as negative, whereas the control group saw similar situations as positive. The anorexia patients also reported negative possible selves with high controllability and high probability in relation to such situations and in some cases rated recovery from anorexia with a negative valence. Clinical implications are discussed.

Student responses to a reflexive course evaluation

Abstract Simple surveys are the predominant tool for course evaluations in most universities, but their validity has been questioned. They have been criticized for being a ritual way of complying with administrative regulations rather than a way of improving educational quality. Moreover, there is often a focus on student satisfaction, where the complexity of learning processes and the development of learner identities are lost. As an alternative approach, a qualitative course evaluation was tested that consisted of a single question: What could have been done in this course in order to better support your learning? Twenty-one second-year psychology students completed the evaluation at the end of a course. They provided rich answers describing learning activities and communication, and they described both teachers and students as agents. Going beyond merely reporting possible improvements, the students saw their learning processes in a context of academic demands and social mechanisms. It is argued that qualitative course evaluations can provide information about students’ understanding of their own learning that is difficult to uncover in a traditional survey. It is concluded that qualitative course evaluations would support the development of a student learner identity and help create a role for students as co-producers of knowledge.

Academic misconduct in teaching portfolios

Within academia, clear and standardised communication is vital. From this point of departure, we discuss the trustworthiness of teaching portfolios when used in assessment. Here, misconduct and fraud are discussed in terms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, following the literature on research fraud. We argue that the portfolio’s unclear academic status and confusing standards makes it difficult to define misconduct. We see a risk that the practice of portfolio writing for assessment can lead to misconduct, including downright lies about accomplishments. We conclude that the trustworthiness of teaching portfolios is a responsibility for the academic community as a whole.

Learning outcomes and critical thinking – good intentions in conflict

ABSTRACT The notion of critical thinking and its theoretical complexity are used as a case for an epistemological critique of the model of intended learning outcomes. The conclusion is that three problems of learning outcomes, previously discussed in the literature, become even more challenging when seen in the light of critical thinking. The first problem concerns interpretations, as the use of learning outcomes is dependent on advanced but implicit interpretative frameworks. The second is the problem of educational goals that cannot be expressed through learning outcomes, and the third is the risk that learning outcomes may establish a ceiling for student ambitions. It is argued that the example of critical thinking shows the seriousness of the epistemological critique of learning outcomes and how the use of learning outcomes can divert teachers’ and students’ attention away from important goals.

A single-question qualitative bachelor’s programme evaluation

Abstract Conventionally, quantitative surveys are used for student evaluations in higher education, but the validity of this practice has been questioned. In the present study, we investigated a qualitative method for evaluating a bachelor’s programme. Forty-one first-year students and twenty-eight third-year students on a bachelor’s programme in Public Administration were asked to answer a single question in relation to their programme: ‘What could have been done in order to support your learning?’ The students provided rich responses of a depth and breadth not attainable through conventional surveys, making this method worthwhile for educational development at the programme level. The responses focused on students’ own learning rather than on judgement of teacher performance. The results indicate that the students underwent a transition from the first to third year, suggesting a shift in needs. For example, first-year students asked for direct interaction, whereas third-year students asked for feedback on accomplishments. Practical applications are discussed.