Possible selves are traditionally defined as conceptions of our selves in future states. The author discusses the way the theory is used in the literature and argues that there is a need for a clearer definition, because there appear to be a number of common misinterpretations regarding possible selves. Important features of possible selves are discussed, in particular their nature as experienced meaning, their relation with the rest of the self-concept, and their social and cultural nature. It is suggested that agency is an important aspect of possible selves and that they can be seen as narratives. The clearer definition suggested is that possible selves are conceptions of our selves in the future, including, at least to some degree, an experience of being an agent in a future situation. Possible selves get vital parts of their meaning in interplay with the self-concept, which they in turn moderate, as well as from their social and cultural context.

In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.

The notion of critical thinking and its theoretical complexity are used as a case for an epistemological critique of the model of intended learning outcomes. The conclusion is that three problems of learning outcomes, previously discussed in the literature, become even more challenging when seen in the light of critical thinking. The first problem concerns interpretations, as the use of learning outcomes is dependent on advanced but implicit interpretative frameworks. The second is the problem of educational goals that cannot be expressed through learning outcomes, and the third is the risk that learning outcomes may establish a ceiling for student ambitions. It is argued that the example of critical thinking shows the seriousness of the epistemological critique of learning outcomes and how the use of learning outcomes can divert teachers' and students' attention away from important goals.

No abstract

No abstract