- Email: [email protected]
Graduate student research on individual differences
Learning and Individual Differences 26 (2013) 139–140
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Editorial
Graduate student research on individual differences Mark L. Garibaldi 1 American Institutes for Research, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Spatial performance Mathematical thinking Creativity Pride Reading ability Language development Memory Motivation
a b s t r a c t This is a special section that exclusively features graduate student research that aims to advance the study of comparisons among individuals of the same type. There is a range of research included in this section with articles that address topics, such as spatial performance, mathematical thinking, creativity, pride, reading ability, language development, memory, and motivation. The authors of these articles submitted these works during their graduate studies. To date, some authors are currently students or recently completed their studies and obtained their graduate degrees. This is a valuable collection of articles with an international representation of bourgeoning researchers. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
As the field of differential psychology changes over time, so do its contributors, as graduate students conceptualize new directions or partake in ongoing debates. During my graduate studies I was graciously invited by Elena Grigorenko to guest edit a section of Learning and Individual Differences (LEAIND) that exclusively featured the noteworthy scholarship of graduate students. Most researchers and graduate students alike have experienced the process of publishing. However, to intermediate between new ideas and a domain as an editor is a rare and poignant experience, particularly at an early stage in one's career, so I enthusiastically accepted this scholarly enterprise. This privilege has lent itself to many new perspectives on scholarship but none greater than the lesson of responsibility. As the late creativity theorist Howard Gruber fomented the notion of “extraordinary moral responsibility”2 of creative endeavors, intermediaries who interpret and guide the values of a domain are also responsible for discerning the quality and ethics of creative endeavors (Stein, 1993). Thus, it is my pleasure to feature the sophisticated research of these authors,3 and in this manner, praise them for accomplishing high standards of scientific research. To some the notion of high standards may seem quotidian. However, this editor is particularly sensitive to the responsibility of ensuring these standards as this collection earmarks the first graduate student section of LEAIND. The following articles represent a kaleidoscope of timely research that aim to advance the study of comparisons among individuals of the same type. The first set of articles addresses spatial performance and mathematical thinking. For instance, Miller and Halpern (2013)
1
Guest Editor Extraordinary moral responsibility is described as “the performance of actions or a consistent commitment to a pattern of moral behavior that went beyond the expected, challenged the dominant perspective, involving the actor in personal risk” (Haste, 2005). 3 In some cases, authors were graduate students when their article was submitted but have since completed their studies and obtained their degrees. 2
1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.007
look at the effects of spatial training on spatial performance and STEM coursework. Their findings suggest the necessity of sustained spatial training for narrowing gender differences in spatial skills, as gender differences narrowed between gifted, male and female STEM undergraduates with spatial training. In the next article, Wubbena (2013) examines the relationship between mathematical fluency and Piaget's numerical conservation task in 6- and 7-year-olds. Among the findings they show that conserving children have notably greater fluency in addition and subtraction than non-conserving children. The next set of articles concentrates on creativity and motivation, and creative activity. Damian and Robins (2013) investigate the effects of authentic and hubristic pride on creative achievement, as well as the mediating role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Their findings show a positive link between intrinsic motivation and creativity, and suggest that authentic and hubristic prides are differentially related to creative achievement. Within the same domain of creativity, Botella et al. (2013) use mixed-methods to identify factors that artists consider important for their creativity as well as the stages of their creative activity. Based on the narrative accounts of professional artists, their findings highlight the importance of the four P's (person, process, press, and product) and the multivariate approach (cognitive, conative, emotional, and environmental components) with creative activity. The second set of articles examines reading ability and language development. For example, Ritchie et al. (2013) focused on the relationship between reading ability and creative ability and creative writing. Their findings suggest that creativity and reading ability are positively associated, but higher reading scores are associated with higher creativity scores. Related to language development, Poll and Miller (2013) sought to understand early predictors of weak language and academic abilities. One key finding shows that children with weak language abilities at age 8 are not late talkers at age 2, which is consistent with the implication that children
140
M.L. Garibaldi / Learning and Individual Differences 26 (2013) 139–140
may take multiple developmental paths to weak language abilities in middle childhood. Memory is the focus of the next set of articles, as Kingston and Lyddy (2013) look at the influence of working memory capacity (WMC) and self-efficacy on numeracy skills. The findings support the role of WMC and self-efficacy on basic numeracy, although selfefficacy explained a significant proportion of the variance in numeracy performance. Related to WMC, Shipstead and Broadway (2013) address the relationship between Stroop interference and recognition memory for neutral words among individuals with low and high WMC. They show that WMC-related attention reflects the efficient selection of appropriate information in the face of distraction. The last set of articles in this section focus on motivation. Dekker et al. (2013) examine the sex differences in goal orientations among adolescents. Their findings highlight both sex and age differences and discuss the implications surrounding gender differences in academic achievement. To understand the comparable effects of the quality and quantity of motivation, Grund (2013), in the next article, identifies distinct motivational profiles for learning and leisure activities. He shows that both quality and quantity of motivation influence the regulation of study–leisure conflicts and imply that conflicting motivational tendencies may concurrently influence learning. The last article in this section, explores the sources of variability in science achievement for Singaporean students. Among the findings Mohammadpour (2013) shows that science self-concept, teaching limitations, and school climate were the strongest predictors of science achievement. This is a valuable collection of articles with an international representation of bourgeoning researchers. I extend my sincerest thanks to the authors and peer-reviewers for their contributions to this special section. It has been a pleasure to review these papers and I hope you enjoy learning from them.
References Botella, M., Glaveanu, V., Zenasni, F., Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., & Wolff, M. (2013). How artists create: The creative process and multivariate factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 161–170. Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Aristotle's virtue or Dante's deadliest sin? The influence of authentic and hubristic pride on creative achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 156–160. Dekker, S., Krabbendam, L., Lee, N. C., Boschloo, A., de Groot, R., & Jolles, J. (2013). Sex differences in goal orientation in adolescents aged 10–19: The older boys adopt work avoidant goals twice as often as girls. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 196–200. Grund, A. (2013). Motivational profiles in study–leisure conflicts: Quality and quantity of motivation matter. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 201–211. Haste, H. (2005). Moral responsibility and citizenship education. In D. B. Wallace (Ed.), Education, arts, and morality: Creative journeys (paths in psychology). New York: Plenum Press. Kingston, J. A., & Lyddy, F. (2013). Self-efficacy and short-term memory capacity as predictors of proportional reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 185–190. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141–152. Mohammadpour, E. (2013). A three-level multilevel analysis of Singaporean students science achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 212–220. Poll, G. H., & Miller, C. A. (2013). Late talking, typical talking, and weak language skills at middle childhood. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 177–184. Ritchie, S. J., Luciano, M., Hansell, N. K., Wright, M. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). The relationship of reading ability to creativity: Positive, not negative associations. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 171–176. Shipstead, Z., & Broadway, J. M. (2013). Individual differences in working memory capacity and the Stroop effect: Do high spans block the words? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 191–195. Stein, M. I. (1993). Moral issues facing intermediaries: Between creators and the public. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1&2), 197–200. Wubbena, Z. C. (2013). Mathematical fluency as a function of conservation ability in young children. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 153–155.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Editorial
Graduate student research on individual differences Mark L. Garibaldi 1 American Institutes for Research, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Spatial performance Mathematical thinking Creativity Pride Reading ability Language development Memory Motivation
a b s t r a c t This is a special section that exclusively features graduate student research that aims to advance the study of comparisons among individuals of the same type. There is a range of research included in this section with articles that address topics, such as spatial performance, mathematical thinking, creativity, pride, reading ability, language development, memory, and motivation. The authors of these articles submitted these works during their graduate studies. To date, some authors are currently students or recently completed their studies and obtained their graduate degrees. This is a valuable collection of articles with an international representation of bourgeoning researchers. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
As the field of differential psychology changes over time, so do its contributors, as graduate students conceptualize new directions or partake in ongoing debates. During my graduate studies I was graciously invited by Elena Grigorenko to guest edit a section of Learning and Individual Differences (LEAIND) that exclusively featured the noteworthy scholarship of graduate students. Most researchers and graduate students alike have experienced the process of publishing. However, to intermediate between new ideas and a domain as an editor is a rare and poignant experience, particularly at an early stage in one's career, so I enthusiastically accepted this scholarly enterprise. This privilege has lent itself to many new perspectives on scholarship but none greater than the lesson of responsibility. As the late creativity theorist Howard Gruber fomented the notion of “extraordinary moral responsibility”2 of creative endeavors, intermediaries who interpret and guide the values of a domain are also responsible for discerning the quality and ethics of creative endeavors (Stein, 1993). Thus, it is my pleasure to feature the sophisticated research of these authors,3 and in this manner, praise them for accomplishing high standards of scientific research. To some the notion of high standards may seem quotidian. However, this editor is particularly sensitive to the responsibility of ensuring these standards as this collection earmarks the first graduate student section of LEAIND. The following articles represent a kaleidoscope of timely research that aim to advance the study of comparisons among individuals of the same type. The first set of articles addresses spatial performance and mathematical thinking. For instance, Miller and Halpern (2013)
1
Guest Editor Extraordinary moral responsibility is described as “the performance of actions or a consistent commitment to a pattern of moral behavior that went beyond the expected, challenged the dominant perspective, involving the actor in personal risk” (Haste, 2005). 3 In some cases, authors were graduate students when their article was submitted but have since completed their studies and obtained their degrees. 2
1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.007
look at the effects of spatial training on spatial performance and STEM coursework. Their findings suggest the necessity of sustained spatial training for narrowing gender differences in spatial skills, as gender differences narrowed between gifted, male and female STEM undergraduates with spatial training. In the next article, Wubbena (2013) examines the relationship between mathematical fluency and Piaget's numerical conservation task in 6- and 7-year-olds. Among the findings they show that conserving children have notably greater fluency in addition and subtraction than non-conserving children. The next set of articles concentrates on creativity and motivation, and creative activity. Damian and Robins (2013) investigate the effects of authentic and hubristic pride on creative achievement, as well as the mediating role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Their findings show a positive link between intrinsic motivation and creativity, and suggest that authentic and hubristic prides are differentially related to creative achievement. Within the same domain of creativity, Botella et al. (2013) use mixed-methods to identify factors that artists consider important for their creativity as well as the stages of their creative activity. Based on the narrative accounts of professional artists, their findings highlight the importance of the four P's (person, process, press, and product) and the multivariate approach (cognitive, conative, emotional, and environmental components) with creative activity. The second set of articles examines reading ability and language development. For example, Ritchie et al. (2013) focused on the relationship between reading ability and creative ability and creative writing. Their findings suggest that creativity and reading ability are positively associated, but higher reading scores are associated with higher creativity scores. Related to language development, Poll and Miller (2013) sought to understand early predictors of weak language and academic abilities. One key finding shows that children with weak language abilities at age 8 are not late talkers at age 2, which is consistent with the implication that children
140
M.L. Garibaldi / Learning and Individual Differences 26 (2013) 139–140
may take multiple developmental paths to weak language abilities in middle childhood. Memory is the focus of the next set of articles, as Kingston and Lyddy (2013) look at the influence of working memory capacity (WMC) and self-efficacy on numeracy skills. The findings support the role of WMC and self-efficacy on basic numeracy, although selfefficacy explained a significant proportion of the variance in numeracy performance. Related to WMC, Shipstead and Broadway (2013) address the relationship between Stroop interference and recognition memory for neutral words among individuals with low and high WMC. They show that WMC-related attention reflects the efficient selection of appropriate information in the face of distraction. The last set of articles in this section focus on motivation. Dekker et al. (2013) examine the sex differences in goal orientations among adolescents. Their findings highlight both sex and age differences and discuss the implications surrounding gender differences in academic achievement. To understand the comparable effects of the quality and quantity of motivation, Grund (2013), in the next article, identifies distinct motivational profiles for learning and leisure activities. He shows that both quality and quantity of motivation influence the regulation of study–leisure conflicts and imply that conflicting motivational tendencies may concurrently influence learning. The last article in this section, explores the sources of variability in science achievement for Singaporean students. Among the findings Mohammadpour (2013) shows that science self-concept, teaching limitations, and school climate were the strongest predictors of science achievement. This is a valuable collection of articles with an international representation of bourgeoning researchers. I extend my sincerest thanks to the authors and peer-reviewers for their contributions to this special section. It has been a pleasure to review these papers and I hope you enjoy learning from them.
References Botella, M., Glaveanu, V., Zenasni, F., Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., & Wolff, M. (2013). How artists create: The creative process and multivariate factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 161–170. Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Aristotle's virtue or Dante's deadliest sin? The influence of authentic and hubristic pride on creative achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 156–160. Dekker, S., Krabbendam, L., Lee, N. C., Boschloo, A., de Groot, R., & Jolles, J. (2013). Sex differences in goal orientation in adolescents aged 10–19: The older boys adopt work avoidant goals twice as often as girls. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 196–200. Grund, A. (2013). Motivational profiles in study–leisure conflicts: Quality and quantity of motivation matter. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 201–211. Haste, H. (2005). Moral responsibility and citizenship education. In D. B. Wallace (Ed.), Education, arts, and morality: Creative journeys (paths in psychology). New York: Plenum Press. Kingston, J. A., & Lyddy, F. (2013). Self-efficacy and short-term memory capacity as predictors of proportional reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 185–190. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141–152. Mohammadpour, E. (2013). A three-level multilevel analysis of Singaporean students science achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 212–220. Poll, G. H., & Miller, C. A. (2013). Late talking, typical talking, and weak language skills at middle childhood. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 177–184. Ritchie, S. J., Luciano, M., Hansell, N. K., Wright, M. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). The relationship of reading ability to creativity: Positive, not negative associations. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 171–176. Shipstead, Z., & Broadway, J. M. (2013). Individual differences in working memory capacity and the Stroop effect: Do high spans block the words? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 191–195. Stein, M. I. (1993). Moral issues facing intermediaries: Between creators and the public. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1&2), 197–200. Wubbena, Z. C. (2013). Mathematical fluency as a function of conservation ability in young children. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 153–155.