Cargando…
Journal of Research on Organization in Education. volume 2 /
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | , |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Charlotte :
Information Age Publishing : Information Age Publishing,
2018.
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Front Cover; Title Page; EDITORS AND EDITORIAL BOARD; Editor; Associate Editors; Assistant Editor; Editorial Assistants; JROE; JROE; Volume 2, 2018; "What Theory is Not" Revisited; 1. Introduce the primary theory (recount the fundamental explanation for the existence or variation in the focal phenomenon) and its relevance to the question at hand, understanding that the purpose of research is to develop or improve theoretical ex ...
- 2. Establish the "Jumping off Place" (Unless the work is a simple replication of existing work, the jumping off place is the articulation of a "normal science" agenda that is, the author argues the need for some specification or extension of ... ; 3. Present any literature and reasoning related specifically to the theory's application to the jumping off place. This requires clear, detailed, and logical argumentation for the proposed hypothesis or research question as derived from the primary ... ; 4. Specify and argue warrants.
- Here the author lays out what precise evidence is being proposed as a legitimate and relevant test of the hypothesis or answer to a research question. An example of specification of warrants could include "table shell ... 5. Present relevant new evidence; describe and justify the data collection choices and the data reduction and analyses processes used, in sufficient detail, so that the research is replicable by others; juxtapose the data against the warrants.; 6. Explore the implications of the new evidence for specification of the primary theory.
- 1. Redundant indicators do not alter self- appraisal. 2. Mixed patterns of evidence allow for interpretive bias.; 3. Efficacy beliefs are both outcomes and causes of efficacy beliefs.; 4. Bias exerted by preexisting self-schemata contribute to the stability of efficacy beliefs.; 5. Existing efficacy beliefs are strengthened by interpreting evidence as confirmatory.; 6. Evidence contradicting existing self- beliefs tends to be minimized or forgotten-not committed to memory.; 7. Congruent evidence is given significance and remembered.
- 8. Dislodging low personal efficacy requires explicit, compelling feedback that forcefully disputes preexisting self-schemata. 9. Attentional and interpretive biases provide essential continuity of self-concept.; 10. Efficacious and stable self-schemata protect against the negative effects of occasional failure.; 11. High efficacy self-schemata individuals tend to interpret poor performance as the produce of faulty strategy, paradoxically enhancing self-efficacy in the belief that better strategy will bring success.