To me, it seems bizarre that classical education appeals to people who are paranoid about wokeism in schools. The “Western” tradition does not vindicate conservative Judeo-Christian thought or debunk either progressive thought or non-religious traditions.
Context: APA's PsycNET is chronically inaccessible to me. To diagnose this, I need to figure out the scope of the problem. (Want more context? See my replies to either one of the polls.)
Is #APA's #PsycNET chronically inaccessible to you?
(It usually blocks me for "trying to access ...using a different IP". No other journal article sites have issues with my IP or block me. Just APA's.)
If you often experience what I do, then PsycNET may be unprepared for shared IPs on #privacyConscious campus networks and services (e.g., #Apple's #iCloud Private Relay).
Hat tip to @elduvelle for asking me to poll this site.
TLDR; there are least 4 problems with the claim that "Argument mapping is about twice as effective at improving student critical thinking as other methods".
An important model posits two routes to persuasion. A peripheral route relies on superficial cues of credibility; a central route involves depth consideration of the reasons and evidence.
The Gino arguments seem to bank on readers sticking with the peripheral route.
I thought Gino claimed that Data Colada didn’t include all the seemingly strange data points their methods revealed and that when one considers all such data points, Data Colada’s accusation seems unsupported. That’s not superficial, logically. So unless someone clearly explains how Gino’s analysis errs, the burden of proof shifts, no?
(Ironically, I didn’t see an argument for the claim that Gino’s objections rely on peripheral and not central routes.)
When I ask colleagues, answers range from hours to days. This ambiguity may be a source of stress. So I've prepended a disclaimer to my email #signature line: "No pressure to read or reply outside your normal working hours, of course."
Generally, I rarely need a response within a week. In rare cases in which my email is motivated by an immanent #deadline, I try to disclose that to my recipient.
Indeed. I wonder how these results were impacted by missing data, @philippsteinkrueger.
"Our coverage is ...better in the United States,.... In the United States we have around 90% of those graduates recorded by the National Science Foundation."
Because data seem to have been collected from departments (which want to report high placement in jobs, especially permanent academic jobs), I would expect that adding missing data would be more likely to decrease these percentages than increase them.