Explore the vast range of titles available.

Forensic evidence plays a critical role in court proceedings and the administration of justice. It is a powerful tool that can help convict the guilty and avoid wrongful conviction of the innocent. Unfortunately, flaws in forensic evidence are increasingly becoming apparent. Assessments of forensic science have too often focused only on the data and the underlying science, as if they exist in isolation, without sufficiently addressing the process by which forensic experts evaluate and interpret the evidence. After all, it is the forensic expert who observes the data and makes interpretations, and therefore forensic evidence is mediated by human and cognitive factors. A U.S. National Research Council examination of forensic science in 2009, followed by a 2016 evaluation by a presidential panel, along with a U.K. inquiry into fingerprinting in 2011 and a 2015 guidance by the U.K. Forensic Science Regulator, have all expressed concerns about biases in forensic expert decision-making. Where does forensic bias come from, and how can we minimize it?

This article investigates youth judgments of the accuracy of truth claims tied to controversial public issues. In an experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey of youth ages 15 to 27 (N = 2,101), youth were asked to judge the accuracy of one of several simulated online posts. Consistent with research on motivated reasoning, youth assessments depended on (a) the alignment of the claim with one's prior policy position and to a lesser extent on (b) whether the post included an inaccurate statement. To consider ways educators might improve judgments of accuracy, we also investigated the influence of political knowledge and exposure to media literacy education. We found that political knowledge did not improve judgments of accuracy but that media literacy education did.

Students often struggle to comprehend complex text. In response, we conducted an initial, year-long study of Quality Talk, a teacher-facilitated, small-group discussion approach designed to enhance students' basic and high-level comprehension, in two fourth-grade classrooms. Specifically, teachers delivered instructional mini-lessons on discourse elements (e.g., questioning or argumentation) and conducted weekly text-based discussions in their language arts classes. Analysis of the videorecorded discussions showed decreases in teacher-initiated discourse elements, indicating a release of responsibility to students, whereas students' discourse reflected increased critical-analytic thinking (e.g., elaborated explanations or exploratory talk). Importantly, statistically and practically significant increases were evidenced on written measures of students' basic and high-level comprehension, indicating the promise of small-group discourse as a way to foster individual student learning outcomes.

Collaborative intellectual engagement is held in high regard in contemporary educational thought as a pedagogical practice of broad value to K–12 students. To what extent is this enthusiasm warranted? Is the practice uniformly productive, or does variability exist in the contexts in which collaboration is effective, the mechanisms involved, and the objectives achieved? In addition to examining these questions, this article suggests further questions that might be addressed with the objective of establishing a more comprehensive base of evidence to substantiate the practice of collaborative learning. Finally, the article reconsiders why collaborative cognition should be a critical concern.

Science educators increasingly seek to support students' participation in scientific practices, particularly epistemic practices, that is, those that ground authority for knowing in the discipline. Argumentation is one practice that has received significant attention in the research literature. However, scholars who take a sociocultural stance increasingly suggest that current conceptualizations are not sufficient for characterizing and supporting important aspects of scientific practice. In this article, I explore how students' argumentation can be brought into closer alignment with that of scientists. I identify consequential differences in the contexts in which scientists and students typically enact argumentation and discuss how these differences have been addressed in the literature. Finally, I propose several directions for further research: embedding argumentation in uncertain scientific activity, supporting students to contest both what they know and their means of knowing, building more carefully from students' resources, and attending to the development of epistemic cultures in classrooms.

Recent randomized experiments have found that seemingly \"small\" socialpsychological interventions in education—that is, brief exercises that target students' thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in and about school—can lead to large gains in student achievement and sharply reduce achievement gaps even months and years later. These interventions do not teach students academic content but instead target students 'psychology, such as their beliefs that they have the potential to improve their intelligence or that they belong and are valued in school. When social-psychological interventions have lasting effects, it can seem surprising and even \"magical, \" leading people either to think of them as quick fixes to complicated problems or to consider them unworthy of serious consideration. The present article discourages both responses. It reviews the theoretical basis of several prominent social-psychological interventions and emphasizes that they have lasting effects because they target students 'subjective experiences in school, because they use persuasive yet stealthy methods for conveying psychological ideas, and because they tap into recursive processes present in educational environments. By understanding psychological interventions as powerful but context-dependent tools, educational researchers will be better equipped to take them to scale. This review concludes by discussing challenges to scaling psychological interventions and how these challenges may be overcome.

The socioscientific issues framework has proven to have a significant impact over the last two decades on many areas related to the development of functional scientific literacy in students. In this article, we summarize and synthesize recent trends in socioscientific issues research that impact both disciplinary and interdisciplinary science education research. These trends represent science-in-context investigations that we propose are advanced by three broad and interrelated areas of research including: 1) Socioscientific Issues and the Central Role of Socioscientific Reasoning; 2) Socioscientific Issues and the Primacy of Socioscientific Perspective Taking; and, 3) Socioscientific Issues and the Importance of Informal and Place-Based Contexts. We discuss the most recent research in those areas and explore the educational significance these new trends.

This study examined narrative and argumentative essays written over the course of a 4-month semester by 37 students of English as a second language (ESL). The essays were analyzed for development over time and for genre differences. The goal of the study was to conceptually replicate previous studies on genre differences (e.g., Lu, 2011) and on short-term linguistic development in the areas of syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency (e.g., Connor-Linton & Polio, 2014). In addition, the authors wanted to investigate whether native speakers exhibited similar genre differences in order to determine if die ESL students' genre variations were developmental or related to functional differences between the genres. The results indicate strong genre differences in the area of linguistic complexity. There were limited changes over time on most measures and a notable lack of development in the area of accuracy. Parallel data from native speakers show genre variation on some but not as many of the measures. Although this study was motivated by research design concerns, it also has implications for theory (e.g., the source of genre differences) and pedagogy.

This article reports an investigation of a professional development program to enhance elementary teachers' ability to engage their students in argument from evidence in science. Using a quasi-experimental approach, three versions were compared: Version A—a 1-week summer institute with a 2-week summer practicum experience and 8 follow-up days (four per year), Version B without the practicum experience, and Version C—a revision of Version A in Year 3. All teachers were videoed twice each year, and the videos were rated using an instrument to measure the quality of discourse. All versions led to a significant improvement in teachers' facilitation of classroom discourse. Neither the practicum nor the revised program had an additional effect. Implications for the field are discussed.

Argumentation is fundamental for many learning assignments, ranging from primary school to university and beyond. Computer-supported argument scaffolds can facilitate argumentative discourse along with concomitant interactive discussions among learners in a group (i.e., first-order argument scaffolding). However, there is no evidence, and hence no knowledge, of whether such argument scaffolds can help students acquire argumentation competence that can be transferred by the students themselves to various similar learning tasks (i.e., second-order argument scaffolding). Therefore, this conceptual article argues that the focus of argument scaffold design and research should be expanded: from the study of first-order scaffolding alone to including the study of second-order scaffolding as well. On the basis of the Script Theory of Guidance (SToG), this paper presents a guideline for second-order argument scaffolding using diagnosis of the student's internal argumentative script and offering adaptive external support and various fading mechanisms. It also explains how to complement adaptive fading support with peer assessment, automatic response tools, and adaptable self-assessment to ensure that learners actually understand, learn, and apply targeted argumentation activities in similar situations.