Write a literature review that provides an authoritative narrative about peer-reviewed sources (3 a specific research question.
By literature,” I mean “peer-reviewed sources.” So, then, by “literature review, -1 mean a re‘leVc Of peer-reviewed sources. Writing this kind of review will involve a few different tasks, and also a certain mindset. Keep these things in mind: ATTITUDES TO CULTIVATE—(I) Be open to refining shat your literature review is about. Right now, you have only a vague idea about your topic. That will change as you find sources and think about what they mean with regard to how you’re viewing this project’s scope. (2) Understand that this is an argument. You want to represent a certain way that you believe sources represent your topic. You want to argue for a way of seeing the current trends in thought on your topic. You want to make readers sec those trends and those areas of the issue that you think are most in need of further research.
(3) Be rigid in your commitment to making your topic narrow. More than likely, all of you will go way too broad in your first attempt at naming your topic. The more sources you find, the more you will see how narrowing is possible. and in fact. necessary.
THINGS TO DO—
(4) Find many more than 9 sources. The minimum to cite is 9, but you should probably find at least double that amount, and then whittle those down to the ones most useful to representing how you want to say experts represent issues related to your topic.
(5) Look for trends among sources. Look for what the issues are that authors debate. Look for authors who agree with each other on some point. Look for disagreements and explain what they’re about. Look for which researchers seem to be held up by others as the most nt.wcctcd authorities on this topic.
(6) Look for gaps in the research. In other words, look for sub-topics about your research that have been less explored by experts than others. Name them. Part of your job is to discover these gaps, write about them, and about how your own future research will try to fill that gap.
(7) Include a References/Works Cited section in which you provide a citation in the appropriate style for each source that you mention in the body of the literature review Pat will discuss this more later). Remember that you must mention at least 9 s011ICCS, and therefore cite at least 9 sources.
Double-space. Use Times New Roman. 12-point font. Use I-inch margins. Number your pages Don’t include a title page. Instead provide a header on the first page that includes your name and “literature Review.” Make sure the paper (excluding the first-page header and the title and the list of sources at the end) is at least 1.200 words. Also include a title on the first page, preferably one that suggests your argument regarding your topic and what you want to say the literature about it suggests. Turn in the paper as a Microsoft Word attachment to the Canvas Discussions Forum entitled, ‘Major Assignment 01: Literature Review.” Do this by Friday. April 13: at 12 pm.
Sunae, K., Paulus, M., Sodian, B., & Proust, J. (2016). Young Children’s Sensitivity to Their Own Ignorance in Informing Others. Plos ONE, 11(3), 1-15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152595
Prior research suggests that young children selectively inform others depending on others’ knowledge states. Yet, little is known whether children selectively inform others depending on their own knowledge states. To explore this issue, we manipulated 3- to 4-year-old children’s knowledge about the content of a box and assessed the impact on their decisions to inform another person. Moreover, we assessed the presence of uncertainty gestures while they inform another person in light of the suggestions that children’s gestures reflect early developing, perhaps transient, epistemic sensitivity. Finally, we compared children’s performance in the informing context to their explicit verbal judgment of their knowledge states to further confirm the existence of a performance gap between the two tasks. In their decisions to inform, children tend to accurately assess their ignorance, whereas they tend to overestimate their own knowledge states when asked to explicitly report them. Moreover, children display different levels of uncertainty gestures depending on the varying degrees of their informational access. These findings suggest that children’s implicit awareness of their own ignorance may be facilitated in a social, communicative context.
This article claims that little is known whether children selectively inform others depending on their own knowledge states. To explore this issue, the researcher manipulated 3 to 4-year-old kid’s knowledge about the content of a box and assessed the impact on their decisions to inform another person. I choose the article because it points out the views that little knowledge impact kids to talk with others.
Harris, P. L., Bartz, D. T., & Rowe, M. L. (2017). Young children communicate their ignorance and ask questions. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 114(30), 7884-7891. doi:10.1073/pnas.1620745114
Children acquire information, especially about the culture in which they are being raised, by listening to other people. Recent evidence has shown that young children are selective learners who preferentially accept information, especially from informants who are likely to be representative of the surrounding culture. However, the extent to which children understand this process of information transmission and actively exploit it to fill gaps in their knowledge has not been systematically investigated. We review evidence that toddlers exhibit various expressive behaviors when faced with knowledge gaps. They look toward an available adult, convey ignorance via nonverbal gestures (flips/shrugs), and increasingly produce verbal acknowledgments of ignorance (“I don’t know”). They also produce comments and questions about what their interlocutors might know and adopt an interrogative stance toward them. Thus, in the second and third years, children actively seek information from interlocutors via nonverbal gestures or verbal questions and display a heightened tendency to encode and retain such sought-after information.
This article explores the kids exhibit various expressive behaviors when faced with knowledge gaps. I choose this article because I am looking forward to the behavior when kids faced to the knowledge gaps. Such as, convey ignorance via nonverbal gestures (flips/shrugs), and increasingly produce verbal acknowledgments of ignorance (“I don’t know”).
Gambrill, E. (2017). Avoidable Ignorance and the Ethics of Risk in Child Welfare. Journal Of Social Work Practice, 31(4), 379-393. doi:10.1080/02650533.2017.1394824
Sources of risk to children include far more than risk of harm to children from biological parents. Key opportunities to reveal and decrease avoidable ignorance that contribute to avoidable risk to children and families have been neglected such as clearly describing the evidentiary status of services provided and outcomes attained. A systemic view of risk requires attention to faulty assessment, referral to agencies that offer ineffective programs, failure to monitor outcomes and the quality of the social worker–client relationship on an ongoing basis, dysfunctional organizational arrangements and failure to involve clients as informed participants. An examination of the websites of child welfare agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area revealed that not one offered information that would enable informed decision making. Education programs may fail to help students to acquire skills in the process of evidence-informed practice. Based on a systemic view of risk, an agenda to decrease avoidable ignorance that contributes to avoidable risks to children and families is suggested emphasizing informed consent obligations. This includes increasing transparency regarding what is done to what effect including professional education and welcoming criticism of practices and policies and related claims. Reasons for failure to reveal and decrease such ignorance are explored including economic interests in the adoption and child welfare services industry.
This article points out that education programs may fail to help students to acquire skills in the process of evidence-informed practice. I choose this topic because I want to mention this point in my research paper. Also, I want to explore how can parents and education system reduce avoidable ignorance.
Harris, P. L., Ronfard, S., & Bartz, D. (2017). Young children’s developing conception of knowledge and ignorance: work in progress. European Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 14(2), 221-232. doi:10.1080/17405629.2016.1190267
When do children acquire an understanding of knowledge and ignorance? We analyzed the early development of children’s spontaneous references toknowingandnot knowingand conclude that 2-year-olds talk explicitly and cogently about their own knowledge as well as that of an interlocutor. Two-year-olds also admit their own ignorance. Moreover, consistent with their realization that an informant may know what they do not, 2-year-olds ask many information-seeking questions. Finally, we discuss children’s receptivity and skepticism, especially toward the counterintuitive claims of an adult. We conclude that children’s conception of knowledge and ignorance begins early but undergoes protracted refinement.
I choose this article because I want to claim the difference of receptivity and skepticism between kids and adults.
Fles, Robert A. (2018). Teaching Kids Patience in an Impatient World.
This article focuses on teaching a child the value of patience in an impatient world. What young people need today are not mechanisms for cramming in more knowledge in less time, but moments devoted to the patient cultivation of understanding. In teaching a child patience, start with eating. Dinner time provides an invaluable opportunity for parents and kids to check in with each other to see how the day went. The dinner table gives parents an arena in which to model the values and skills that will enable children to exercise good judgment.
This article mention that it is important to communicate with kids for parents. Parents can model the values and skills for kids, and helping them to make good judgment. It is the way to avoid the negative grow for kids.
Karoly, L. A. (2016). The Economic Returns to Early Childhood Education. Future Of Children, 26(2), 37-55.
One way to assess the value of preschool education programs is to compare their upfront costs with the economic benefits they produce, measured by such outcomes as less need for special education services, improved high school graduation rates, higher earnings and less criminal activity in adulthood, and so on. What do such benefit-cost analyses tell us about the wisdom of investing in greater access to preschool? In this article, Lynn Karoly carefully reviews the evidence. First, she identifies the biggest challenges in measuring the economic returns from preschool programs. Then she summarizes the range of estimates from various benefit-cost analyses and some of the methodological differences that can account for the differences among them. Last, she explores the implications of the research for using benefit-cost analysis results to make policy decisions about preschool education. One key challenge: Although many preschool programs have been evaluated for their educational effectiveness, few have been subject to economic evaluations. Most predictive studies of preschool education’s long-term economic benefits rely on benefit-cost analyses of programs that were implemented decades ago, when a far smaller proportion of children attended preschool at all, and that followed their subjects well into adult life. Although analyses of those programs suggest returns from preschool as high as $17 for every dollar invested, Karoly concludes that in today’s context, it may be more realistic to expect returns in the range of $3 to $4. In the end, Karoly writes, we need to improve the quality and usefulness of economic evaluations of preschool, particularly by calculating the true economic value of preschool programs’ short-term and medium-term effects in areas such as cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development. We could then more easily evaluate the economic benefits of a preschool program without having to wait until the participating children grow to adulthood.
The article talks about the benefit of preschool education programs. It related to the topic. If the kids can accept the preschool education programs. It would help kids to avoid the ignorance.
“Parents’ Ignorance of Kids Eye Care Revealed.” Optometry Today, vol. 51, no. 12, 17 June 2011, p. 5. EBSCOhost, du.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=63874682&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
The article reports on a public opinion poll conducted by the Mumsnet forum in 2011 which revealed that many parents in Great Britain are unaware how important an eye examination is for their children.
This article indicates the effect of ignorance in children’s eye examination. It shows the behavior of parents can impact the kid’s health.
Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. “Ignorance Is Strength.” Times Higher Education, no. 2051, 24 May 2012, p. 31. EBSCOhost, du.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=76475819&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
The author shares his views on how ignorance could be superior to knowledge. According to the author, ignorance stimulates enquiry. He points that while knowledge is the satiety which inhibits activity, ignorance is the appetite which stimulates invention. He explains that ignorance and knowledge, just like good and evil, are interdependent.
I choose this article because I am interested in author views why ignorance is strength. Moreover, I think it would be the source which against the points that ignorance is bad for kids.
Hayashi, H. (2010). Young children’s moral judgments of commission and omission related to the understanding of Knowledge or Ignorance. Infant & Child Development, 19(2), 187-203.
This study examined developmental change in young children’s moral judgments of commission and omission related to mental states, especially knowledge or ignorance. 4–5 and 5- to 6-year-olds (n=67) made moral judgments about the tasks related to the understanding of knowledge or ignorance. The tasks were also composed of two types of acts: commission or omission. The results showed that the both age groups understood knowledge and ignorance, but that the older group made moral judgments based on this understanding more similar to adults compared to the younger group. There was not an age difference concerning whether the acts were of commission or omission. These findings indicate that there is no difference for young children in the difficulty in moral judgments of acts of commission and omission related to mental states, whereas there is a developmental difference in using the understanding of knowledge or ignorance for making moral judgments. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article shows how the ignorance impact the kids in moral judgments. I would like to use the result of this research in order to shows the effect of ignorance.
Mills, C. M. (2013). Knowing When to Doubt: Developing a Critical Stance When Learning From Others. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 404-418. doi:10.1037/a0029500
Children may be biased toward accepting information as true, but the fact remains that children are exposed to misinformation from many sources, and mastering the intricacies of doubt is necessary. The current article examines this issue, focusing on understanding developmental changes and consistencies in children’s ability to take a critical stance toward information. Research reviewed includes studies of children’s ability to detect ignorance, inaccuracy, incompetence, deception, and distortion. Particular emphasis is placed on what this research indicates about how children are reasoning about when to trust and when to doubt. The remainder of the article proposes a framework to evaluate preexisting research and encourage further research, closing with a discussion of several other overarching questions that should be considered to develop a model to explain developmental, individual, and situational differences in children’s ability to evaluate information.
The article mentions the facts that kids are exposed to misinformation from many sources. They have less ability to distinguish the right or wrong information. In addition, the misinformation might influence the kids to have a wrong acknowledge, and it would be regarded as the ignorance by others.
Kominsky, J. F., Langthome, P., & Keil, F. C. (2016). The Better Part of Not Knowing: Virtuous Ignorance. Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 31-45. doi:10.1037/dev0000065
Suppose you are presented with 2 informants who have provided answers to the same question. One provides a precise and confident answer, and the other says that they do not know. If you were asked which of these 2 informants was more of an expert, intuitively you would select the informant who provided the certain answer over the ignorant informant. However, for cases in which precise information is practically or actually unknowable (e.g., the number of leaves on all the trees in the world), certainty and confidence indicate a lack of competence, while expressions of ignorance may indicate greater expertise. In 3 experiments, we investigated whether children and adults are able to use this “virtuous ignorance” as a cue to expertise. Experiment 1 found that adults and children older than 9 years selected confident informants for knowable information and ignorant informants for unknowable information. However, 5-6-year-olds overwhelmingly favored the confident informant, even when such certainty was completely implausible. In Experiment 2 we replicated the results of Experiment 1 with a new set of items focused on predictions about the future, rather than numerical information. In Experiment 3, we demonstrated that 5-8-year-olds and adults are both able to distinguish between knowable and unknowable items when asked how difficult the information would be to acquire, but those same children failed to reject the precise and confident informant for unknowable items. We suggest that children have difficulty integrating information about the knowability of particular facts into their evaluations of expertise.
The article shows the point that the ignorance is not mean the less of knowledge. In many contexts, more knowledgeable individuals often have more accurate senses of their abilities and limitations, including of their knowledge and explanatory understandings, while less knowledgeable individuals tend to be miscalibrated and overconfident. Thus, it implies when a person who says that they do not know the answer to a question is actually more knowledgeable than one who provides a confident answer.
Scheithauer, H., Alsaker, F., Wölfer, R., & Ruggieri, S. (2013, March). Cyberball: A Reasonable Paradigm for Research in Developmental Science?. International Journal of Developmental Science. pp. 1-6. doi:10.3233/DEV-1300071.
The authors discuss ostracism paradigm Cyberball. The authors say that ostracism is defined as acts of social exclusion or acts of ignorance by another individual or group, which can be described as negative experience that have effect on the socio-emotional development of a child. They state that cyberball is an experimental paradigm that permits researchers to initiate ostracism in an economical way. They highlight ostracism and its effect on the development of children and adolescentsThe authors discuss ostracism paradigm Cyberball. The authors say that ostracism is defined as acts of social exclusion or acts of ignorance by another individual or group, which can be described as negative experience that have effect on the socio-emotional development of a child. They state that cyberball is an experimental paradigm that permits researchers to initiate ostracism in an economical way. They highlight ostracism and its effect on the development of children and adolescents.
This article indicate that ostracism is defined as acts of ignorance. This ignorance behavior has negative effect on the development of children and adolescents.
Thompson, C. (2014). Our Killing Schools. Society, 51(3), 210-220. doi:10.1007/s12115-014-9767-0
The article focuses on shootings and bombings at schools in the U.S. Among the killers are Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. It notes that the crisis of the schools is caused by ignorance, resentment, nihilism and narcissism among students. Also discussed are the effect of Progressive education on children’s education, its role in promoting cognitive confusion in the minds of children, and the pathologies of progressivism.
This article implies that ignorance student might cause the terrible events such as school shooting. It shows the negative impact of ignorance. Moreover, the article indicates the effect of progressive education on children’s education.
Harris, Paul L. “Trust.” Developmental Science, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2007, pp. 135-138. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00575.x.
Children rely extensively on others’ testimony to learn about the world. However, they are not uniformly credulous toward other people. From an early age, children’s reliance on testimony is tempered by selective trust in particular informants. Three- and 4-year-olds monitor the accuracy or knowledge of informants, including those that are familiar. They prefer to seek and endorse information provided by someone who has proved accurate in the past rather than someone who has made mistakes or acknowledged ignorance. Future research is likely to pinpoint other heuristics that children use to filter incoming testimony and may reveal more generalized patterns of trust and mistrust among individual children.
The article indicate that children presumably depend on other people for relevant information in order to understand the world. However, they are not uniformly credulous toward other people. They would like to trust people who can provide the accurate information rather than the people who are ignorance. It means children’s education is related to the parent’s degree of ignorance.
Goossens, N. J., Flokstra-de Blok, B. J., Meulen, G. N., Botjes, E., Burgerhof, H. M., Gupta, R. S., & … Dubois, A. J. (2013). Food allergy knowledge of parents – is ignorance bliss?. Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 24(6), 567-573. doi:10.1111/pai.12099
Background Food allergic children are at least partially dependent on their parents to care for their food allergy. In addition, parents are often responsible for the education of others regarding food allergy, including the family, school, neighbors, and friends. The aim of this study was to investigate food allergy knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of parents with food allergic children in the Netherlands. In addition, a cross-cultural comparison was made between parents from the USA and parents from the Netherlands. Methods The original Chicago Food Allergy Research Survey for Parents of Children with Food Allergy ( CFARS- PRNT) was translated into Dutch. Parents of children with at least one doctor-diagnosed food allergy were included. Knowledge scores and attitude/beliefs scores were determined and compared with the data from 2945 parents from the USA. Predictors of overall knowledge scores were investigated. Results Dutch parents of children completed the translated CFARS- PRNT (n = 299). The mean overall knowledge score in the Netherlands was 9.9 after adjusting for guessing, compared with 12.7 in the USA (p < 0.001). Attitudes and beliefs regarding food allergy among parents from the Netherlands were generally more optimistic. The overall knowledge scores could be predicted by country of origin, educational degree, being member of a patient organization, visiting an allergist, and a history of anaphylaxis. Conclusions Food allergy knowledge among parents of food allergic children from the Netherlands is suboptimal when compared with their counterparts from the USA, although these parents tend to be more optimistic toward food allergy than parents from the USA.
The article indicates how the parents impact kid’s health. Moreover, the article imply that ignorance may be bliss, and it can also be dangerous. The goals for the article is improving knowledge and safety while minimizing potential detrimental aspects on quality of life. It remind the reader, especially for parent, taking care the knowledge of food allergy in order to provide a health life for kids.