Explore the vast range of titles available.

Participants in clinical trials frequently fail to appreciate key differences between research and clinical care. This phenomenon, known as therapeutic misconception, undermines informed consent to clinical research, but to date there have been no effective interventions to reduce it and concerns have been expressed that to do so might impede recruitment. We determined whether a scientific reframing intervention reduces therapeutic misconception without significantly reducing willingness to participate in hypothetical clinical trials. This prospective randomized trial was conducted from 2015 to 2016 to test the efficacy of an informed consent intervention based on scientific reframing compared to a traditional informed consent procedure (control) in reducing therapeutic misconception among patients considering enrollment in hypothetical clinical trials modeled on real-world studies for one of five disease categories. Patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, head/neck cancer, breast cancer, and major depression were recruited from medical clinics and a clinical research volunteer database. The primary outcomes were therapeutic misconception, as measured by a validated, ten-item Therapeutic Misconception Scale (range = 10-50), and willingness to participate in the clinical trial. 154 participants completed the study (age range, 23-87 years; 92.3% white, 56.5% female); 74 (48.1%) had been randomized to receive the experimental intervention. Therapeutic misconception was significantly lower (p = 0.004) in the scientific reframing group (26.4, 95% CI [23.7 to 29.1] compared to the control group (30.9, 95% CI [28.4 to 33.5], and remained so after controlling for education (p = 0.017). Willingness to participate in the hypothetical trial was not significantly different (p = 0.603) between intervention (52.1%, 95% CI [40.2% to 62.4%]) and control (56.3%, 95% CI [45.3% to 66.6%] groups. An enhanced educational intervention augmenting traditional informed consent led to a meaningful reduction in therapeutic misconception without a statistically significant change in willingness to enroll in hypothetical clinical trials. Additional study of this intervention is required in real-world clinical trials.

The latest development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), particularly ChatGPT, has drawn the attention of educational researchers and practitioners. We have witnessed many innovative uses of ChatGPT in STEM classrooms. However, studies regarding students’ perceptions of ChatGPT as a virtual tutoring tool in STEM education are rare. The current study investigated undergraduate students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as an assistant tool for addressing physics questions. Specifically, the study examined the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering physics questions, the relationship between students’ ChatGPT trust levels and answer accuracy, and the influence of trust on students’ perceptions of ChatGPT. Our finding indicates that despite the inaccuracy of GenAI in question answering, most students trust its ability to provide correct answers. Trust in GenAI is also associated with students’ perceptions of GenAI. In addition, this study sheds light on students’ misconceptions toward GenAI and provides suggestions for future considerations in AI literacy teaching and research.

This study explores the tension between the standard economic theory of preference and nonstandard theories of preference that are motivated by an underlying theory of framing. A simple experiment fails to measure a known preference. The divergence of the measured preference from the known preference reflects a mistake, arising from some subjects’ misconception of the game form. We conclude that choice data should not be granted an unqualified interpretation of preference revelation. Mistakes in choices obscured by a possible error at the foundation of the theory of framing can masquerade as having been produced by nonstandard preferences.

This brief note responds to Feng, Wang, and Liu (2024), who claim that Neuhaus and Jewell (1993) contains a \"flaw\" and is based on an invalid argument. The opposite is true: there is no flaw in Neuhaus and Jewell (1993), and Feng, Wang, and Liu’s development is based on a misconception of what our paper describes, including their use of an incorrect assumption. This misinformation should be corrected.

Are citizens willing to accept journalistic fact-checks of misleading claims from candidates they support and to update their attitudes about those candidates? Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the effects of exposure to counter-attitudinal information. As fact-checking has become more prominent, it is therefore worth examining how respondents respond to fact-checks of politicians—a question with important implications for understanding the effects of this journalistic format on elections. We present results to two experiments conducted during the 2016 campaign that test the effects of exposure to realistic journalistic fact-checks of claims made by Donald Trump during his convention speech and a general election debate. These messages improved the accuracy of respondents’ factual beliefs, even among his supporters, but had no measurable effect on attitudes toward Trump. These results suggest that journalistic fact-checks can reduce misperceptions but often have minimal effects on candidate evaluations or vote choice.

Since the publication of their inaugural paper on the topic in 2006, Braun and Clarke’s approach has arguably become one of the most thoroughly delineated methods of conducting thematic analysis (TA). However, confusion persists as to how to implement this specific approach to TA appropriately. The authors themselves have identified that many researchers who purport to adhere to this approach—and who reference their work as such—fail to adhere fully to the principles of ‘reflexive thematic analysis’ (RTA). Over the course of numerous publications, Braun and Clarke have elaborated significantly upon the constitution of RTA and attempted to clarify numerous misconceptions that they have found in the literature. This paper will offer a worked example of Braun and Clarke’s contemporary approach to reflexive thematic analysis with the aim of helping to dispel some of the confusion regarding the position of RTA among the numerous existing typologies of TA. While the data used in the worked example has been garnered from health and wellbeing education research and was examined to ascertain educators’ attitudes regarding such, the example offered of how to implement the RTA would be easily transferable to many other contexts and research topics.

This study examines the relationship between teacher knowledge and student learning for 9,556 students of 181 middle school physical science teachers. Assessment instruments based on the National Science Education Standards with 20 items in common were administered several times during the school year to both students and their teachers. For items that had a very popular wrong answer, the teachers who could identify this misconception had larger classroom gains, much larger than if the teachers knew only the correct answer. On items on which students did not exhibit misconceptions, teacher subject matter knowledge alone accounted for higher student gains. This finding suggests that a teacher's ability to identify students' most common wrong answer on multiple-choice items, a form of pedagogical content knowledge, is an additional measure of science teacher competence.

Several phenomena of misconception have been discovered worldwide. In misconception, students strongly believe in the truth of the answers chosen of the questions given but the answers are wrong. This study aims to identify misconceptions that occur in first year students on the concept of acid-base theory. These students are pre service student in chemistry education. As prospective teachers, these students should be free from misconceptions so that they will not bring misconception to their own students one day. This study used a three tier diagnostic test to diagnose misconception from 125 students (1 st and 2 nd year) as data resources. The students have been given paper and pencil test consist of 15 questions. Each question consists of three levels, namely the choice of concept answers at the first level. The second level is the reason for the answer to the first level question. The third part is the level of confidence in the answers and reasons. Data analyzed to determine the percentage of misconceptions. The results showed that the first year students experienced misconceptions type 1, 2 and 3 in the low category. There were no students who guessed the answers.

Notwithstanding its crucial role in facilitating desired outcomes of schooling, educational psychology researchers have recognized the conceptual haziness of student engagement as a multidimensional construct. With the main purpose of refining its conceptual definition, this paper aims to attain the following four goals. First, we seek to highlight theoretical, conceptual, and operational concerns about the student engagement construct, and synthesize these concerns into four related areas: overgeneralization, jingle-jangle fallacies, object ambiguity, and under-theorization. Second, we conduct a comprehensive review of prevailing perspectives on student engagement and critically examine their strengths and limitations. Building upon such extant models, third, we offer the Dual Component Framework of Student Engagement, which differentiates learning engagement from school engagement, and articulates the conceptual definition and scope, as well as the objects and dimensions, of the two engagement constructs. Lastly, we underscore the theoretical, research, and applied implications of the proposed framework in advancing the field of student engagement.