VantagePoint explores relationship between Cognitive Science and Educational Research

 

VantagePoint text-analytic capabilities have been heavily employed in a multi-year research grant from the US National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources on “Exploring the relationship between Cognitive Science and Educational Research.”

Search Technology is pleased to share this listing of select published VantagPoint results.

Measuring Interdisciplinary Research Categories and Knowledge Transfer: A Case Study of Connections between Cognitive Science and Education. Perspectives on Science (2019) https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00317

This is a “bottom-up” paper in the sense that it draws lessons in defining disciplinary categories under study from a series of empirical studies of interdisciplinarity. In particular, we are in the process of studying the interchange of research-based knowledge between Cognitive Science and Educational Research. This has posed a set of design decisions that we believe warrant consideration as others study cross-disciplinary research processes.

What people learn about how people learn:  An analysis of citation behavior and the multidisciplinary flow of knowledge. Research Policy  (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103835

We explore the contention that the seminal US National Academies consensus report, How People Learn (HPL), played a major role in bridging the flow of knowledge from Cognitive Science to Education. The  results are a caution that, even for a highly regarded multidisciplinary work cited widely by publications from multiple disciplines, its direct influence could be largely disciplinary. Implications for the policy goals of fostering interdisciplinary research and the role of National Academies consensus reports are discussed.

The Relationship between Forward and Backward Diversity in CORE Datasets. Scientometrics (2019)  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03163-3.

In this paper we seek to better understand the relationship between forward diversity in the Cognitive Science and Educational Research literature, as well as what we call Border fields (i.e. those fields which exist at the intersection of Cognitive Science and Education Research). We find a clear and convincing relationship between forward and backward diversity in the datasets we study. Among all available explanatory variables, Integration scores claim the strongest correlation in terms of their ability to account for forward diversity. When comparing results from this study to benchmark results from a prior study (using the same indicators) the datasets in this study show a tendency to be both more integrative and diffuse.

Learning about learning: patterns of sharing of research knowledge among Education, Border, and Cognitive Science fields. Scientometrics (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03012-3

This study explores the patterns of exchange of research knowledge among Education Research, Cognitive Science, and what we call “Border Fields.” We note five findings—first, over time the percentage of Education Research papers that extensively cite Cognitive Science has increased, but the reverse is not true. Second, a high percentage of Border Field papers extensively cite and are cited by the other fields. Border Field authors’ most cited papers overlap those most cited by Education Research and Cognitive Science. Third, over time the Border Fields have moved closer to Education Research than to Cognitive Science, and their publications increasingly cite, and are cited by, other Border Field publications. Fourth, Education Research is especially strongly represented in the literature published outside those WoS-indexed publications. Fifth, the rough patterns observed among these three fields when using a more restricted dataset drawn from the WoS are similar to those observed with the dataset lying outside the WoS, but Education Research shows a far heavier influence than would be indicated by looking at WoS records alone.

 

Home  Contact Us          © 2001 - 2019 Search Technology, Inc.  |  Privacy Statement