| 1. |
- Jandrić, Petar, et al.
(författare)
-
Teaching in the Age of Covid-19 : The New Normal
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Postdigital Science and Education. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2524-485X .- 2524-4868. ; 4:3, s. 877-1015
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- On 17 March 2020, Postdigital Science and Education launched a call for testimonies about teaching and learning during very frst Covid-19 lockdowns. The resulting article, ‘Teaching in the Age of Covid-19’ (attached), presents 81 written testimonies and 80 workspace photographs submitted by 84 authors from 19 countries. On 17 March 2021, Postdigital Science and Education launched a call for a sequel article of testimonies about teaching and learning during very first Covid-19 lockdowns. The resulting article, ‘Teaching in the Age of Covid-19—1 Year Later’(attached), consists of 74 textual testimonies and 76 workspace photographs submitted by 77 authors from 20 countries.These two articles have been downloaded almost 100,000 times and have been cited more than 100 times. This shows their value as historical documents. Recent analyses, such as ‘Teaching in the Age of Covid-19—A Longitudinal Study ’(attached), also indicate their strong potential for educational research. As the Covid-19 pandemic seems to wind down, pandemic experiences have entered the mainstream. They shape all educational research of today and arguably do not require special treatment. Yet, our unique series of pandemic testimonies provides a unique opportunity to longitudinally trace what happens to the same people over the years—and this opportunity should not be missed.Today, we launch a call for fnal sequel: Teaching in the Age of Covid-19—The New Normal. In this sequel, we would like to hear about ways in which you—contributors to the previous articles—have established your own new normal. We hope that this will be the last iteration in this series of testimony articles. Unless the world faces another strong pandemic outburst, we would like to end the series with this last article.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jandrić, Petar, et al.
(författare)
-
Teaching in the Age of Covid-19—1 Year Later
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Postdigital Science and Education. - : Springer. - 2524-485X .- 2524-4868. ; 3:3, s. 1073-1223
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 3. |
- Jandrić, Petar, et al.
(författare)
-
Teaching in the Age of Covid-19
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Postdigital Science and Education. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2524-4868 .- 2524-485X. ; 2:3, s. 1069-1230
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- A collection of 84 author's testimonies and workspace photographs between 18 March and 5 May 2020.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ebersole, Charles R., et al.
(författare)
-
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
|
|
| 5. |
- Schäffer, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Environmental Science and Technology. - 0013-936X .- 1520-5851. ; 57:48
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Pollution by chemicals and waste impacts human and ecosystem health on regional, national, and global scales, resulting, together with climate change and biodiversity loss, in a triple planetary crisis. Consequently, in 2022, countries agreed to establish an intergovernmental science-policy panel (SPP) on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, complementary to the existing intergovernmental science-policy bodies on climate change and biodiversity. To ensure the SPP’s success, it is imperative to protect it from conflicts of interest (COI). Here, we (i) define and review the implications of COI, and its relevance for the management of chemicals, waste, and pollution; (ii) summarize established tactics to manufacture doubt in favor of vested interests, i.e., to counter scientific evidence and/or to promote misleading narratives favorable to financial interests; and (iii) illustrate these with selected examples. This analysis leads to a review of arguments for and against chemical industry representation in the SPP’s work. We further (iv) rebut an assertion voiced by some that the chemical industry should be directly involved in the panel’s work because it possesses data on chemicals essential for the panel’s activities. Finally, (v) we present steps that should be taken to prevent the detrimental impacts of COI in the work of the SPP. In particular, we propose to include an independent auditor’s role in the SPP to ensure that participation and processes follow clear COI rules. Among others, the auditor should evaluate the content of the assessments produced to ensure unbiased representation of information that underpins the SPP’s activities.
|
|
