Students' stress: The relationship of college students' stress variables to goal orientations, academic self-concept, and achievement variables.

Results revealed that Academic Self-Concept was the most influential and predictive of GPA. Cognitive Appraisal Strategies and Negative Personal Beliefs Stressors had strong influences on Academic Self-Concept. Furthermore, Negative Personal Beliefs Stressors strongly influenced Cognitive Appraisal Strategies. Additionally, Negative Personal Beliefs Stressors correlated strongly with all stressors and stress reactions. Finally, tests for "goodness of fit" indicated that the trimmed model fits the data well.Path analysis was utilized to test the validity of a hypothetical causal model, depicting the influence of students' stressors on Grade Point Average (GPA) when mediated by: (1) Cognitive Appraisal Strategies; (2) Cognitive Reactions; (3) Emotional Reactions; (4) Physiological Reactions; (5) Mastery Orientation; (6) Performance Orientation; and (7) Academic Self-Concept. Students' stressors consisted of: (1) Instruction and Evaluation; (2) Classroom Environment; (3) Teachers; (4) Work; (5) Family; and (6) Negative Personal Beliefs. The convenience sample consisted of college students (N = 582) from two major universities in the Midsouth: The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, and the University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, Oklahoma. Students completed questionnaires designed to assess the aforementioned causal relationship

Academic domains as political battlegrounds : A global enquiry by 99 academics in the fields of education and technology

Academic cognition and intelligence are ‘socially distributed’; instead of dwelling inside the single mind of an individual academic or a few academics, they are spread throughout the different minds of all academics. In this article, some mechanisms have been developed that systematically bring together these fragmented pieces of cognition and intelligence. These mechanisms jointly form a new authoring method called ‘crowd-authoring’, enabling an international crowd of academics to co-author a manuscript in an organized way. The article discusses this method, addressing the following question: What are the main mechanisms needed for a large collection of academics to collaborate on the authorship of an article? This question is addressed through a developmental endeavour wherein 101 academics of educational technology from around the world worked together in three rounds by email to compose a short article. Based on this endeavour, four mechanisms have been developed: a) a mechanism for finding a crowd of scholars; b) a mechanism for managing this crowd; c) a mechanism for analyzing the input of this crowd; and d) a scenario for software that helps automate the process of crowd-authoring. The recommendation is that crowd-authoring ought to win the attention of academic communities and funding agencies, because, given the well-connected nature of the contemporary age, the widely and commonly distributed status of academic intelligence and the increasing value of collective and democratic participation, large-scale multi-authored publications are the way forward for academic fields and wider academia in the 21st century.peerReviewe

Academic domains as political battlegrounds:A global enquiry by 99 academics in the fields of education and technology

This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars’ reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political ‘actors’, just like their human counterparts, having ‘agency’ – which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) ‘battlefields’ wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi: 10.1177/0266666915622044.</p

Academic Domains As Political Battlegrounds: A Global Enquiry By 99 Academics in The Fields of Education and Technology

This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi: 10.1177/0266666915622044.Wo