Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning

Collaborative learning in computer-supported learning environments typically means that learners work on tasks together, discussing their individual perspectives via text-based media or videoconferencing, and consequently acquire knowledge. Collaborative learning, however, is often sub-optimal with respect to how learners work on the concepts that are supposed to be learned and how learners interact with each other. One possibility to improve collaborative learning environments is to conceptualize epistemic scripts, which specify how learners work on a given task, and social scripts, which structure how learners interact with each other. In this contribution, two studies will be reported that investigated the effects of epistemic and social scripts in a text-based computer-supported learning environment and in a videoconferencing learning environment in order to foster the individual acquisition of knowledge. In each study the factors ‘epistemic script’ and ‘social script’ have been independently varied in a 2×2-factorial design. 182 university students of Educational Science participated in these two studies. Results of both studies show that social scripts can be substantially beneficial with respect to the individual acquisition of knowledge, whereas epistemic scripts apparently do not to lead to the expected effects

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Empathy as an Essential Foundation to Successful Foster Parenting

Empathy Foster parents Foster care Resilience Fosterin

Historical Reasoning: The Interplay of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Aspects

In this chapter, we explore the question of domain-general and domain-specific aspects of reasoning in history. Historical reasoning is a form of informal reasoning. There are no single procedures to reach a conclusion and there is no single clear-cut or correct solution. History deals with events that have already happened, in a time that is different from ours. This has important implications for reasoning. In order to construct a historical explanation one needs to explore the historical context and to identify actions and motives of people in the past, as well as to identify developments and societal structures as potential causes and describe how these causes ‘produced’ the event under inspection. Claims and conclusions about historical phenomena need to be supported by evidence. Historical evidence, however, is often mediated through other people (living in another time), incomplete and uncertain. Reasoning might be domain-specific because it is strongly determined by declarative and procedural knowledge that is unique in a discipline, or because the reasoning tasks are unique. Domain-specificity can also be the result of the fact that it appears within a particular epistemic domain. Each domain has its own means and standards of justification. Using insights from both philosophy of history and history education research, we discuss reasoning tasks that are considered characteristic for the discipline of history. For each type of task we address the question of how researchers conceptualize the role of domain-specific declarative, procedural, and epistemic knowledge. We will illustrate the interplay of domain-general and domain-specific aspects with examples from students’ reasoning in the context of collaborative learning tasks