4.4 Review

The Jingle-Jangle of Approaches to Learning in Prekindergarten: a Construct with Too Many Names

期刊

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-023-09796-4

关键词

Jingle fallacy; Jangle fallacy; Conceptualization; Measurement; Approaches to Learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Approaches to Learning (AtL) is a concept that encompasses children's attitudes, habits, and learning styles in the context of learning. However, previous research on AtL has suffered from inconsistencies in definitions, operationalizations, and measurements. This paper focuses on the inconsistencies in studying AtL in prekindergarten children and identifies the issues of a jingle fallacy and a jangle fallacy. The paper concludes by proposing strategies to reduce the conceptual clutter surrounding AtL.
Approaches to Learning (AtL) is an umbrella construct describing children's attitudes, habits, and learning styles as they engage in learning. First introduced by the National Education Goals Panel to indicate a child's readiness to learn in school, AtL includes openness to new tasks, initiative, task persistence, and imagination. Over the years, this construct has been studied in various ways, leading to inconsistencies in terms, operationalizations, and measurements. This paper examined the issues surrounding the inconsistencies in previous research on AtL in studies focused on prekindergarten children. One consistency included the broad set of characteristics attributed to the construct of AtL, resulting in a jingle fallacy. Another inconsistency occurred when researchers used different terms to describe similar constructs, resulting in a jangle fallacy. In this case, adjustment, behavioral engagement, and classroom participation were reported as separate constructs in the literature yet were measured using AtL measurements. The paper concluded by offering ways to reduce the conceptual clutter surrounding AtL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据