{"title":"Uncovering the Complex Effects of Socioeconomic Status and Executive Functions on Academic Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Qiong Hu, Canmei Xu, Yiheng Jiang, Yiting Hu, Yiqi Wang, Hanbing Ren, Yilin Huang, Martin Buschkuehl, Susanne M. Jaeggi, Qiong Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10091-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10091-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145599258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-21DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10090-8
Matthew T. McCrudden, Macy Bowman, Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca
There is a growing recognition of the value of mixed methods research for investigating complex issues in educational psychology. However, little is known about the use of mixed methods in the field and the reporting of methodological rigor. Methodological rigor refers to the steps researchers take while conducting a study. The reporting of methodological rigor allows reviewers and readers to evaluate the extent to which those steps result in reliable and valid inferences about the findings. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the reporting of methodological rigor in mixed methods research articles in educational psychology. We screened all articles in five prominent educational psychology journals over a seven-year period from 2016 to 2022. We identified trends in the use of mixed methods and evaluated the reporting quality of articles that reported using mixed methods ( n = 57). The results indicated an increase in the use of mixed methods and researchers have generally done an effective job of reporting methodological rigor. We identify strengths and areas for improvement in reporting quality and provide suggestions for promoting high reporting quality in mixed methods articles.
{"title":"Reporting of Methodological Rigor in Empirical Mixed Methods Research in Educational Psychology","authors":"Matthew T. McCrudden, Macy Bowman, Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10090-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10090-8","url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing recognition of the value of mixed methods research for investigating complex issues in educational psychology. However, little is known about the use of mixed methods in the field and the reporting of methodological rigor. Methodological rigor refers to the steps researchers take while conducting a study. The reporting of methodological rigor allows reviewers and readers to evaluate the extent to which those steps result in reliable and valid inferences about the findings. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the reporting of methodological rigor in mixed methods research articles in educational psychology. We screened all articles in five prominent educational psychology journals over a seven-year period from 2016 to 2022. We identified trends in the use of mixed methods and evaluated the reporting quality of articles that reported using mixed methods ( <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 57). The results indicated an increase in the use of mixed methods and researchers have generally done an effective job of reporting methodological rigor. We identify strengths and areas for improvement in reporting quality and provide suggestions for promoting high reporting quality in mixed methods articles.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145575682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-19DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10085-5
GeckHong Yeo, Jennifer E. Lansford
{"title":"Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Educational Functioning: A Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"GeckHong Yeo, Jennifer E. Lansford","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10085-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10085-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145546247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-19DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10087-3
Ann-Kathrin Krause, Jasmin Breitwieser, Garvin Brod
Students frequently rely on ineffective learning strategies instead of those that promote long-term retention. This is not simply a matter of lacking metacognitive knowledge. Research on self-regulated learning typically emphasizes that students deliberately avoid effective strategies due to time and effort demands, or because their academic goals can be met without them. In this paper, we aim to expand this perspective by investigating the role of non-deliberate, habitual behaviors in students’ self-directed use of learning strategies. Drawing on key principles of habit and habit formation, we argue that particularly ineffective learning strategies tend to develop strong habitual tendencies. An overreliance on them may therefore stem not only from a lack of deliberate choices but also from their automatic activation in response to environmental cues. We explore this idea both theoretically, by analyzing how ineffective strategies align with habit characteristics, and empirically, through a proof-of-concept study comparing the habit strength of strategies that differ in effectiveness. By framing learning strategy use through a habit-based lens, we highlight non-deliberate learning behavior and discuss possible implications for interventions that leverage behavior-change principles to promote the adoption of effective strategies.
{"title":"Understanding Learning Strategy Use Through the Lens of Habit","authors":"Ann-Kathrin Krause, Jasmin Breitwieser, Garvin Brod","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10087-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10087-3","url":null,"abstract":"Students frequently rely on ineffective learning strategies instead of those that promote long-term retention. This is not simply a matter of lacking metacognitive knowledge. Research on self-regulated learning typically emphasizes that students deliberately avoid effective strategies due to time and effort demands, or because their academic goals can be met without them. In this paper, we aim to expand this perspective by investigating the role of non-deliberate, habitual behaviors in students’ self-directed use of learning strategies. Drawing on key principles of habit and habit formation, we argue that particularly ineffective learning strategies tend to develop strong habitual tendencies. An overreliance on them may therefore stem not only from a lack of deliberate choices but also from their automatic activation in response to environmental cues. We explore this idea both theoretically, by analyzing how ineffective strategies align with habit characteristics, and empirically, through a proof-of-concept study comparing the habit strength of strategies that differ in effectiveness. By framing learning strategy use through a habit-based lens, we highlight non-deliberate learning behavior and discuss possible implications for interventions that leverage behavior-change principles to promote the adoption of effective strategies.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145545862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-18DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10084-6
Héctor R. Ponce, Richard E. Mayer, Ester E. Méndez
{"title":"Learner-Generated and Instructor-Provided Graphic Organizers as Aids to Learning from Text: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Héctor R. Ponce, Richard E. Mayer, Ester E. Méndez","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10084-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10084-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145536588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research on emotional artificial intelligence (emotional AI) in education—AI that detects learners’ emotions and/or provides emotional support and AI that produces affective learning outcomes but does not directly provide emotional support—has grown rapidly, yet quantitative syntheses are scarce. We meta-analyzed empirical studies reporting outcomes in knowledge, skills, affect, perception, and behavior. A meta‑analysis was conducted based on 172 articles on empirical research published between 2000 and 2025; 54 studies reported in 49 articles quantify the effects of emotional AI interventions on cognitive and emotional outcomes. Eight types of AI-based cognitive support and five types of AI-based emotional support were identified. We interpreted effects through control-value theory. Cognitive supports are expected to increase perceived control over tasks, while emotional supports regulate achievement emotions; integrated supports should therefore yield stronger outcomes than emotional-only support. Random-effects models were used; heterogeneity and moderator analyses were conducted. We did not perform formal asymmetry tests for outcomes with k < 20; for affect ( k = 31), Egger’s test indicated asymmetry and model-dependent trim-and-fill results are reported. Integrated cognitive and emotional support showed a large effect on knowledge acquisition ( g = 0.88, 95% CI [0.36, 1.40]), a near-medium effect on affect ( g = 0.42, 95% CI [0.06, 0.78]), and a small effect on perception ( g = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.77]). In comparison, cognitive-only support yielded a medium effect on knowledge acquisition ( g = 0.52, 95% CI [0.17, 0.87]), a near-medium effect on skill ( g = 0.44, 95% CI [0.19, 0.68]) and affect ( g = 0.48, 95% CI [ 0.33, 0.63]), and a large effect on perception ( g = 0.85, 95% CI [0.50, 1.20]). Integrated support was found to be more effective for knowledge acquisition than cognitive-only support, but less effective for perception, with similar effect on affect. Evidence for emotional-only support is limited (two studies). Findings have implications for the design of AI-supported educational systems and highlight the need for more rigorous experimental research to isolate the unique contribution of AI-based emotional support.
{"title":"Emotional Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Heng Zhang, Yuhan Liu, Meilin Jiang, Juanjuan Chen, Minhong Wang, Fred Paas","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10086-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10086-4","url":null,"abstract":"Research on emotional artificial intelligence (emotional AI) in education—AI that detects learners’ emotions and/or provides emotional support and AI that produces affective learning outcomes but does not directly provide emotional support—has grown rapidly, yet quantitative syntheses are scarce. We meta-analyzed empirical studies reporting outcomes in knowledge, skills, affect, perception, and behavior. A meta‑analysis was conducted based on 172 articles on empirical research published between 2000 and 2025; 54 studies reported in 49 articles quantify the effects of emotional AI interventions on cognitive and emotional outcomes. Eight types of AI-based cognitive support and five types of AI-based emotional support were identified. We interpreted effects through control-value theory. Cognitive supports are expected to increase perceived control over tasks, while emotional supports regulate achievement emotions; integrated supports should therefore yield stronger outcomes than emotional-only support. Random-effects models were used; heterogeneity and moderator analyses were conducted. We did not perform formal asymmetry tests for outcomes with <jats:italic>k</jats:italic> < 20; for affect ( <jats:italic>k</jats:italic> = 31), Egger’s test indicated asymmetry and model-dependent trim-and-fill results are reported. Integrated cognitive and emotional support showed a large effect on knowledge acquisition ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.88, 95% CI [0.36, 1.40]), a near-medium effect on affect ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.42, 95% CI [0.06, 0.78]), and a small effect on perception ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.77]). In comparison, cognitive-only support yielded a medium effect on knowledge acquisition ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.52, 95% CI [0.17, 0.87]), a near-medium effect on skill ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.44, 95% CI [0.19, 0.68]) and affect ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.48, 95% CI [ 0.33, 0.63]), and a large effect on perception ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.85, 95% CI [0.50, 1.20]). Integrated support was found to be more effective for knowledge acquisition than cognitive-only support, but less effective for perception, with similar effect on affect. Evidence for emotional-only support is limited (two studies). Findings have implications for the design of AI-supported educational systems and highlight the need for more rigorous experimental research to isolate the unique contribution of AI-based emotional support.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145515922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10077-5
Serap Keles, Dieuwer ten Braak, Åste Mjelve Hagen, Monica Melby-Lervåg
The validity of the screening tools used as a part of assigning students to tiers within the Three Tier framework is essential for its quality and success. Although the Three Tier model has been widely implemented, there remains a lack of comprehensive synthesis regarding the accuracy of screening methods used as part of tier assignment procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined empirical studies on the validity of screening and progress monitoring tools in the domains of literacy, language, and mathematics. A comprehensive search of seven databases and search engines yielded 127 eligible studies. The majority of tools identified were used in the literacy domain, with the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) being the most frequently employed. Of the included studies, 18 studies provided data on convergent validity, including concurrent or predictive correlations, and sensitivity and specificity metrics. Using a correlated-hierarchical effects robust variance estimation (CHE-RVE) model, results indicated a moderate overall pooled effect size for correlations ( r = .51, 95% CI [.35, .64], p = .001). However, this estimate should be interpreted cautiously, as heterogeneity was very high. Sensitivity and specificity estimates also varied widely across different tools. Findings highlight the limited number of studies assessing the validity of screening tools. Given the central role of screening in identifying students with learning difficulties, further research is needed to improve the precision and reliability of these instruments.
筛选工具的有效性是将学生分配到三层框架中的一部分，对其质量和成功至关重要。虽然三层模型已被广泛实施，但仍然缺乏关于作为分层分配程序一部分的筛选方法的准确性的全面综合。本系统综述和荟萃分析检验了在识字、语言和数学领域中筛选和进度监测工具有效性的实证研究。通过对7个数据库和搜索引擎的全面搜索，得出了127项符合条件的研究。确定的大多数工具都用于识字领域，其中最常用的是基本早期识字技能动态指标（DIBELS）。在纳入的研究中，18项研究提供了收敛效度的数据，包括并发或预测相关性，以及敏感性和特异性指标。使用相关分层效应稳健方差估计（CHE-RVE）模型，结果显示相关性的总体合并效应大小适中（r = 0.51, 95% CI）。35岁。64], p = .001)。然而，这一估计应谨慎解释，因为异质性非常高。不同工具的敏感性和特异性估计也有很大差异。研究结果强调了评估筛查工具有效性的研究数量有限。鉴于筛查在识别有学习困难的学生方面的核心作用，需要进一步的研究来提高这些工具的准确性和可靠性。
{"title":"Validity of Early-Grade Screening Tools in the Three Tier (RTI/MTSS) Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Literacy, Language, and Mathematics","authors":"Serap Keles, Dieuwer ten Braak, Åste Mjelve Hagen, Monica Melby-Lervåg","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10077-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10077-5","url":null,"abstract":"The validity of the screening tools used as a part of assigning students to tiers within the Three Tier framework is essential for its quality and success. Although the Three Tier model has been widely implemented, there remains a lack of comprehensive synthesis regarding the accuracy of screening methods used as part of tier assignment procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined empirical studies on the validity of screening and progress monitoring tools in the domains of literacy, language, and mathematics. A comprehensive search of seven databases and search engines yielded 127 eligible studies. The majority of tools identified were used in the literacy domain, with the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) being the most frequently employed. Of the included studies, 18 studies provided data on convergent validity, including concurrent or predictive correlations, and sensitivity and specificity metrics. Using a correlated-hierarchical effects robust variance estimation (CHE-RVE) model, results indicated a moderate overall pooled effect size for correlations ( <jats:italic>r</jats:italic> = .51, 95% CI [.35, .64], <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .001). However, this estimate should be interpreted cautiously, as heterogeneity was very high. Sensitivity and specificity estimates also varied widely across different tools. Findings highlight the limited number of studies assessing the validity of screening tools. Given the central role of screening in identifying students with learning difficulties, further research is needed to improve the precision and reliability of these instruments.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"160 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10081-9
Johanna Lowis Donath, Timo Lüke, Ulrich S. Tran, Elouise Botes, Thomas Goetz
Teachers require support to implement inclusive education effectively, and teacher training is a key to providing this support cost-effectively. However, while education research has established theories on student learning, there is still a lack of understanding regarding how teachers learn and integrate new ideas, making it essential to investigate the transfer process to improve the implementation of school reforms. The many overlapping theories on teachers’ learning in in-service training, as presented in the literature, have been summarized here in five models. These five models were tested regarding their fit to empirical data in secondary analyses using meta-analytic SEM. The literature search revealed 228 studies that met the inclusion criteria, comprising 244 samples and 117,609 participating teachers and students. Only one model had an acceptable model fit. This model is characterized by the assumption that teacher training affects willingness to change, which in turn influences the subsequent transfer process. Further research should be theory-based, testing theories using primary data, particularly in the context of willingness to change.
{"title":"The Transfer of Teacher Training to Inclusive Classroom Practice: A Meta-Analytic SEM Approach","authors":"Johanna Lowis Donath, Timo Lüke, Ulrich S. Tran, Elouise Botes, Thomas Goetz","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10081-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10081-9","url":null,"abstract":"Teachers require support to implement inclusive education effectively, and teacher training is a key to providing this support cost-effectively. However, while education research has established theories on student learning, there is still a lack of understanding regarding how teachers learn and integrate new ideas, making it essential to investigate the transfer process to improve the implementation of school reforms. The many overlapping theories on teachers’ learning in in-service training, as presented in the literature, have been summarized here in five models. These five models were tested regarding their fit to empirical data in secondary analyses using meta-analytic SEM. The literature search revealed 228 studies that met the inclusion criteria, comprising 244 samples and 117,609 participating teachers and students. Only one model had an acceptable model fit. This model is characterized by the assumption that teacher training affects willingness to change, which in turn influences the subsequent transfer process. Further research should be theory-based, testing theories using primary data, particularly in the context of willingness to change.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"609 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10065-9
Kenneth A. Kiewra
{"title":"Productive Educational Psychologists: What You Should Know","authors":"Kenneth A. Kiewra","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-10065-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10065-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：