Pub Date : 2024-09-07DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09921-x
Karen R. Harris
In this article, I provide the first publication thoroughly detailing how the theoretical foundation for the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) instructional model was developed. I explain the development of the theoretical base for the SRSD model of instruction and the initial focus on writing instruction. I detail the reasoning and research that provided the base for the theory underlying the SRSD model of instruction. The theoretical base relies, in part, on both theoretical integration and triangulation; I define and provide examples of each process. I address the role of multiple theories, early studies, and iterations that led to the current SRSD instructional model. The tenets of the theoretical base, theoretical principle, and four initial and foundational research questions for the SRSD instructional model are detailed. Research regarding the four initial research questions is summarized, demonstrating the tenets and theoretical principle behind the SRSD model of instruction are valid and meaningful. A sizeable body of research across multiple countries indicates moderate to large effect sizes across many outcomes of SRSD instruction in writing and other complex learning areas. Finally, I address both directions for future research and significant challenges in scaling up SRSD instruction, including paradigm wars and other barriers.
{"title":"The Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instructional Model: Efficacious Theoretical Integration, Scaling Up, Challenges, and Future Research","authors":"Karen R. Harris","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09921-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09921-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, I provide the first publication thoroughly detailing how the theoretical foundation for the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) instructional model was developed. I explain the development of the theoretical base for the SRSD model of instruction and the initial focus on writing instruction. I detail the reasoning and research that provided the base for the theory underlying the SRSD model of instruction. The theoretical base relies, in part, on both theoretical integration and triangulation; I define and provide examples of each process. I address the role of multiple theories, early studies, and iterations that led to the current SRSD instructional model. The tenets of the theoretical base, theoretical principle, and four initial and foundational research questions for the SRSD instructional model are detailed. Research regarding the four initial research questions is summarized, demonstrating the tenets and theoretical principle behind the SRSD model of instruction are valid and meaningful. A sizeable body of research across multiple countries indicates moderate to large effect sizes across many outcomes of SRSD instruction in writing and other complex learning areas. Finally, I address both directions for future research and significant challenges in scaling up SRSD instruction, including paradigm wars and other barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142144241","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 : 2024-09-02DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09939-1
Alexander Skulmowski
Unnoticed by most, some technology corporations have changed their terms of service to allow user data to be transferred to clouds and even to be used to train artificial intelligence systems. As a result of these developments, remote data collection may in many cases become impossible to be conducted anonymously. Researchers need to react by reconsidering their mode of data collection, raising awareness, and expanding informed consent to ensure information sovereignty. Considerations for data sharing are discussed.
{"title":"AI-Related Threats to Information Sovereignty and Challenges for Research Ethics","authors":"Alexander Skulmowski","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09939-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09939-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Unnoticed by most, some technology corporations have changed their terms of service to allow user data to be transferred to clouds and even to be used to train artificial intelligence systems. As a result of these developments, remote data collection may in many cases become impossible to be conducted anonymously. Researchers need to react by reconsidering their mode of data collection, raising awareness, and expanding informed consent to ensure information sovereignty. Considerations for data sharing are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142124068","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 : 2024-09-02DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09928-4
Kirsty Wilding, Megan Wright, Sophie von Stumm
Recent advances in genomics make it possible to predict individual differences in education from polygenic scores that are person-specific aggregates of inherited DNA differences. Here, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the strength of these DNA-based predictions for educational attainment (e.g., years spent in full-time education) and educational achievement (e.g., school grades). For educational attainment (k = 20, n = 16, Ntotal = 314,757), a multilevel meta-analysis showed an association with polygenic scores of ρ = .27 (95% CI from .22 to .32). For educational achievement (k = 19, n = 10, Ntotal = 83,788), the association was ρ = .24 (95% CI from .18 to .30). Eurocentric biases were evident with only 15% of estimates being reported in samples of non-European ancestry. After accounting for sample ancestry, age at assessment, and education measure, the meta-analytic estimates increased to ρ = .29 (95% CI from .24 to .33) for educational attainment and ρ = .50 (95% CI from .39 to .61) for educational achievement, indicative of large effect sizes. All meta-analytic estimates were associated with significant heterogeneity. Our findings suggest that DNA-based predictions of education are sizeable but vary across samples and studies. We outline three steps to safeguard potential applications of polygenic score predictions in education to maximize their benefits for personalizing learning, while minimizing the bioethical risks of perpetuating social, cultural, and economic inequalities.
基因组学的最新进展使我们有可能通过多基因分数预测教育方面的个体差异,多基因分数是遗传 DNA 差异的特定个体集合体。在此,我们对这些基于 DNA 的教育程度(如接受全日制教育的年数)和教育成就(如学校成绩)预测的强度进行了系统回顾和元分析。对于受教育程度(k = 20,n = 16,Ntotal = 314 757),多层次荟萃分析显示与多基因分数的关联度为 ρ = .27(95% CI 为 .22 至 .32)。在教育成就方面(k = 19,n = 10,Ntotal = 83 788),相关性为 ρ = .24(95% CI 从 .18 到 .30)。欧洲中心偏倚明显,只有 15%的估计值是在非欧洲血统样本中报告的。在考虑了样本血统、评估年龄和教育程度后,教育程度的荟萃分析估计值增加到ρ = .29(95% CI 从 .24 到 .33),教育成就的ρ = .50(95% CI 从 .39 到 .61),显示出较大的效应大小。所有荟萃分析估计值都存在显著的异质性。我们的研究结果表明,基于 DNA 的教育预测具有一定规模,但在不同样本和研究中存在差异。我们概述了三个步骤来保护多基因分数预测在教育领域的潜在应用,以最大限度地发挥其在个性化学习方面的优势,同时最大限度地降低延续社会、文化和经济不平等的生物伦理风险。
{"title":"Using DNA to Predict Education: a Meta-analytic Review","authors":"Kirsty Wilding, Megan Wright, Sophie von Stumm","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09928-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09928-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent advances in genomics make it possible to predict individual differences in education from polygenic scores that are person-specific aggregates of inherited DNA differences. Here, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the strength of these DNA-based predictions for educational attainment (e.g., years spent in full-time education) and educational achievement (e.g., school grades). For educational attainment (<i>k</i> = 20, <i>n</i> = 16, <i>N</i><sub>total</sub> = 314,757), a multilevel meta-analysis showed an association with polygenic scores of <i>ρ</i> = .27 (95% CI from .22 to .32). For educational achievement (<i>k</i> = 19, <i>n</i> = 10, <i>N</i><sub>total</sub> = 83,788), the association was <i>ρ</i> = .24 (95% CI from .18 to .30). Eurocentric biases were evident with only 15% of estimates being reported in samples of non-European ancestry. After accounting for sample ancestry, age at assessment, and education measure, the meta-analytic estimates increased to <i>ρ</i> = .29 (95% CI from .24 to .33) for educational attainment and <i>ρ</i> = .50 (95% CI from .39 to .61) for educational achievement, indicative of large effect sizes. All meta-analytic estimates were associated with significant heterogeneity. Our findings suggest that DNA-based predictions of education are sizeable but vary across samples and studies. We outline three steps to safeguard potential applications of polygenic score predictions in education to maximize their benefits for personalizing learning, while minimizing the bioethical risks of perpetuating social, cultural, and economic inequalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142124083","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 : 2024-08-28DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6
Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot
Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (n = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”
{"title":"Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research","authors":"Sébastien Miravete, André Tricot","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many recent studies support the idea that creativity is partially or totally “domain-general.” Certain individuals may exhibit greater creativity than the average, whatever the domain. More precisely, certain general factors (e.g., genetic factors, creative personality) could significantly impact creativity. This systematic review aims to evaluate this latter assertion. All empirical papers using at least two creative performance tasks in two domains were selected (<i>n</i> = 36). Results show that some participants succeed in creative tasks in several different domains, but only in experiments where specific prior knowledge is not controlled and tasks are artificial. Furthermore, certain studies conflate the function, which is domain-general, with its functioning, which may not necessarily be domain-general. For these reasons, the results appear less robust (no control for confounding factors) and less representative (creative tasks are not academically, socially, or professionally realistic). Therefore, it seems premature to recommend the integration of general creative skills into school or training programs, as well as the selection of students or employees with a presumed “creative profile.”</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"146 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142089921","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 : 2024-08-28DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09929-3
Cheng Yong Tan
Socioeconomic status (SES) has been widely argued to be an important predictor of students’ learning outcomes; the corollary is that low-SES students face immense challenges in their learning. The present study employed an umbrella review, comprising a thematic review and second-order meta-analysis, of 48 reviews relating SES to student learning to critically examine this argument. Results elucidate three sets of insights on the relationship between SES and student learning. First, researchers need to expand the conceptualization of SES from being an objective, individual attribute measuring hierarchical differences in access to resources to a more comprehensive construct incorporating (a) objective and subjective evaluations of (b) individual and collective SES attributes; (c) emphasizing students’ mobilization of capital; and (d) adopting a more diverse, asset-based perspective of SES. Second, the umbrella review provides a nuanced evaluation of the influence of SES in student learning. It yields a mean SES effect size of r = .22 (deemed as large with reference to educational benchmarks, expected students’ achievement gains, and percentile points in achievement tests) but SES effects may be confounded with other demographics. Third, SES needs to be examined from an ecological perspective, given the different mediating and moderating processes pertaining to SES in student learning. The results imply that policies for improving low-SES students’ learning outcomes should comprehensively address multiple factors influencing student learning and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, enhance disadvantaged students’ access to educational opportunities and resources, affirm the strengths that disadvantaged students bring to their learning, and address structural and systemic inequalities related to poverty, classism, and segregation.
人们普遍认为,社会经济地位(SES)是预测学生学习成果的一个重要因素;由此推论,社会经济地位低的学生在学习中面临巨大挑战。本研究通过对 48 篇有关社会经济地位与学生学习的综述进行专题综述和二阶荟萃分析,对这一论点进行了批判性研究。研究结果阐明了关于社会经济地位与学生学习之间关系的三组见解。首先,研究人员需要将社会经济地位的概念从衡量获取资源方面等级差异的客观、个体属性扩展为一个更全面的概念,其中包括:(a) 对(b) 个人和集体社会经济地位属性的客观和主观评价;(c) 强调学生对资本的调动;(d) 对社会经济地位采用更多样化、基于资产的视角。其次,总括性综述对学生学习中的社会经济地位影响进行了细致入微的评估。它得出的平均社会经济地位效应大小为 r = 0.22(参照教育基准、学生的预期成绩提高以及成绩测试的百分位数,这被认为是较大的效应),但社会经济地位效应可能会与其他人口统计学因素相混淆。第三,考虑到与学生学习中的社会经济地位有关的不同中介和调节过程,需要从生态学的角度对社会经济地位进行研究。研究结果表明,改善低社会经济地位学生学习成绩的政策应全面解决影响学生学习的多种因素,避免一刀切的方法,增加弱势学生获得教育机会和资源的途径,肯定弱势学生在学习中发挥的优势,解决与贫困、阶级歧视和种族隔离有关的结构性和系统性不平等问题。
{"title":"Socioeconomic Status and Student Learning: Insights from an Umbrella Review","authors":"Cheng Yong Tan","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09929-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09929-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Socioeconomic status (SES) has been widely argued to be an important predictor of students’ learning outcomes; the corollary is that low-SES students face immense challenges in their learning. The present study employed an umbrella review, comprising a thematic review and second-order meta-analysis, of 48 reviews relating SES to student learning to critically examine this argument. Results elucidate three sets of insights on the relationship between SES and student learning. First, researchers need to expand the conceptualization of SES from being an objective, individual attribute measuring hierarchical differences in access to resources to a more comprehensive construct incorporating (a) objective and subjective evaluations of (b) individual and collective SES attributes; (c) emphasizing students’ mobilization of capital; and (d) adopting a more diverse, asset-based perspective of SES. Second, the umbrella review provides a nuanced evaluation of the influence of SES in student learning. It yields a mean SES effect size of <i>r</i> = .22 (deemed as large with reference to educational benchmarks, expected students’ achievement gains, and percentile points in achievement tests) but SES effects may be confounded with other demographics. Third, SES needs to be examined from an ecological perspective, given the different mediating and moderating processes pertaining to SES in student learning. The results imply that policies for improving low-SES students’ learning outcomes should comprehensively address multiple factors influencing student learning and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, enhance disadvantaged students’ access to educational opportunities and resources, affirm the strengths that disadvantaged students bring to their learning, and address structural and systemic inequalities related to poverty, classism, and segregation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"2014 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142090066","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 : 2024-08-24DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09931-9
Tanja Bross, Ulrike Elisabeth Nett, Martin Daumiller
Both achievement goals and achievement emotions have empirically been found to be important within educational contexts. This meta-analysis examined the interrelations among six achievement goals and fifteen achievement emotions and various moderators by analyzing 2,644 effect sizes from 355 studies with 155,208 participants. The findings revealed interrelations among achievement goals and achievement emotions that mainly corroborate theoretical assumptions. Mastery and performance goals showed associations with activity and outcome emotions. The results for work-avoidance goals confirmed the assumption that engaging in work avoidance is particularly related to negative activity emotions. Relational goals are positively linked to positive affect and enjoyment. Facets of mastery goals were identified as relevant moderators of the interrelations among achievement goals and emotions, in contrast to population. The results highlight the relevance of considering the interplay among achievement goals and achievement emotions at a specific level, as opposed to considering only the affective level, as well as differentiating between activity and outcome emotions to better understand their relationships with achievement goals.
{"title":"Interrelations Among Achievement Goals and Achievement Emotions: A Meta-Analytic Examination","authors":"Tanja Bross, Ulrike Elisabeth Nett, Martin Daumiller","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09931-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09931-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Both achievement goals and achievement emotions have empirically been found to be important within educational contexts. This meta-analysis examined the interrelations among six achievement goals and fifteen achievement emotions and various moderators by analyzing 2,644 effect sizes from 355 studies with 155,208 participants. The findings revealed interrelations among achievement goals and achievement emotions that mainly corroborate theoretical assumptions. Mastery and performance goals showed associations with activity and outcome emotions. The results for work-avoidance goals confirmed the assumption that engaging in work avoidance is particularly related to negative activity emotions. Relational goals are positively linked to positive affect and enjoyment. Facets of mastery goals were identified as relevant moderators of the interrelations among achievement goals and emotions, in contrast to population. The results highlight the relevance of considering the interplay among achievement goals and achievement emotions at a specific level, as opposed to considering only the affective level, as well as differentiating between activity and outcome emotions to better understand their relationships with achievement goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142045646","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 : 2024-08-22DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4
Noortje Janssen, Ard W. Lazonder
Accurate monitoring of performance in problem-solving tasks is an important prerequisite for students’ future academic success. A wide variety of interventions aiming to enhance students’ monitoring accuracy have been developed, but their effectiveness is not apparent from the individual studies in which they have been examined. This meta-analysis classified these interventions in terms of how they target students’ monitoring and investigated their relative effectiveness to improve monitoring accuracy in problem-solving tasks. Findings across the 35 included studies indicated that all interventions combined have a small positive effect on students’ monitoring accuracy (g = 0.25). Intervention type moderated the findings. Interventions on the whole task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standards improved monitoring accuracy. On the other hand, interventions targeting the timing of metacognitive judgment negatively impacted monitoring accuracy and significantly differed from all other interventions. Exploratory moderator analyses of study features indicated that secondary school students benefited least from the interventions compared to primary school students and adults, laboratory studies showed larger effects than classroom studies, and interventions were more effective for retrospective confidence judgments than for judgments of learning. For educational practice, interventions targeting the whole task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standards are recommended, while reconsideration and possibly discontinuation of timing interventions is needed.
{"title":"Meta-analysis of Interventions for Monitoring Accuracy in Problem Solving","authors":"Noortje Janssen, Ard W. Lazonder","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate monitoring of performance in problem-solving tasks is an important prerequisite for students’ future academic success. A wide variety of interventions aiming to enhance students’ monitoring accuracy have been developed, but their effectiveness is not apparent from the individual studies in which they have been examined. This meta-analysis classified these interventions in terms of how they target students’ monitoring and investigated their relative effectiveness to improve monitoring accuracy in problem-solving tasks. Findings across the 35 included studies indicated that all interventions combined have a small positive effect on students’ monitoring accuracy (<i>g</i> = 0.25). Intervention type moderated the findings. Interventions on the whole task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standards improved monitoring accuracy. On the other hand, interventions targeting the timing of metacognitive judgment negatively impacted monitoring accuracy and significantly differed from all other interventions. Exploratory moderator analyses of study features indicated that secondary school students benefited least from the interventions compared to primary school students and adults, laboratory studies showed larger effects than classroom studies, and interventions were more effective for retrospective confidence judgments than for judgments of learning. For educational practice, interventions targeting the whole task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standards are recommended, while reconsideration and possibly discontinuation of timing interventions is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142021853","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 : 2024-08-22DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8
Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, Marius Bregulla
Self-regulated learning (SRL) and executive functions (EF) are broad concepts stemming from different research areas. They have been defined and modeled in various ways and are repeatedly related to each other in the literature, but so far, no systematic analyses of these relations have been published. Therefore, a systematic analysis of their relationships described in the literature was conducted. Nineteen studies were synthesized concerning different categories (age groups, measurement methods, role of metacognition, relation to achievement, and longitudinal/intervention studies). In general, primarily low to moderate correlational relationships between SRL and EF were reported, with no detectable pattern depending on the age group. Measurement methods used to capture SRL and EF seem to influence the size of the correlations, with indirect measures correlating higher than direct/indirect measures. In addition, there is evidence that metacognition mediates the relationship between EF and SRL. In general, the notion that EF predicts SRL but not vice versa is supported. Following the systematic review, the results are critically discussed in the light of non-generalizable samples, measurement methods, and results interpretation issues. Suggestions for theory building and promising future research are given.
自我调节学习(SRL)和执行功能(EF)是源自不同研究领域的广泛概念。在文献中,它们以不同的方式被定义和建模,并被反复地联系在一起,但迄今为止,还没有发表过对这些关系的系统分析。因此,我们对文献中描述的它们之间的关系进行了系统分析。共归纳了 19 项不同类别的研究(年龄组、测量方法、元认知的作用、与成绩的关系以及纵向/干预研究)。总体而言,SRL 与 EF 之间主要存在低度到中度的相关关系,没有发现与年龄组有关的模式。用于捕捉 SRL 和 EF 的测量方法似乎会影响相关性的大小,间接测量的相关性高于直接/间接测量的相关性。此外,有证据表明,元认知对 EF 和 SRL 之间的关系起着中介作用。总体而言,EF 预测 SRL 而不是反向预测 SRL 的观点得到了支持。在系统性综述之后,我们根据非普遍性样本、测量方法和结果解释问题对研究结果进行了批判性讨论。对理论建设和未来研究前景提出了建议。
{"title":"The Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Executive Functions—a Systematic Review","authors":"Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, Marius Bregulla","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Self-regulated learning (SRL) and executive functions (EF) are broad concepts stemming from different research areas. They have been defined and modeled in various ways and are repeatedly related to each other in the literature, but so far, no systematic analyses of these relations have been published. Therefore, a systematic analysis of their relationships described in the literature was conducted. Nineteen studies were synthesized concerning different categories (age groups, measurement methods, role of metacognition, relation to achievement, and longitudinal/intervention studies). In general, primarily low to moderate correlational relationships between SRL and EF were reported, with no detectable pattern depending on the age group. Measurement methods used to capture SRL and EF seem to influence the size of the correlations, with indirect measures correlating higher than direct/indirect measures. In addition, there is evidence that metacognition mediates the relationship between EF and SRL. In general, the notion that EF predicts SRL but not vice versa is supported. Following the systematic review, the results are critically discussed in the light of non-generalizable samples, measurement methods, and results interpretation issues. Suggestions for theory building and promising future research are given.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142022241","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 : 2024-08-21DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09938-2
Waseem Hassan, Amedee Marchand Martella, Daniel H. Robinson
Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422–430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg's study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology.
{"title":"Identifying the Most Cited Articles and Authors in Educational Psychology Journals from 1988 to 2023","authors":"Waseem Hassan, Amedee Marchand Martella, Daniel H. Robinson","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09938-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09938-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422–430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg's study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013900","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 : 2024-08-20DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09937-3
Tianyi Ma, Cassandra L. Tellegen, Julie Hodges, Matthew R. Sanders
High-quality partnerships between families and schools can bring enormous benefits to the development, learning, and wellbeing of children. Decades of research has identified parenting self-efficacy as a key factor influencing parents’ contributions toward effective home-school partnerships. However, the strength of this association has varied significantly across studies with the aggregated strength remaining unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the associations between parenting self-efficacy and various aspects of parents’ contribution to the home-school partnership, namely home-based involvement, school-based involvement, home-school communication and relationships, as well as parental expectations and aspirations among parents of primary school students. Moderator effects were also examined. Through systematically searching six databases and screening papers, we included 50 independent studies involving 185 effect sizes (N = 20,043 children). Results showed a small to medium correlation between parenting self-efficacy and the multidimensional construct of home-school partnership outcomes (r = .189). The associations were stronger for education-focused parenting self-efficacy (r = .183) than general parenting self-efficacy (r = .114) and were stronger still for home-based participation (r = .248) and parental expectations and aspirations (r = .248) than school-based participation (r = .124) and parent-teacher communication/relationship (r = .090). We detected limited moderating effects of child gender, parent gender, ethnicity, sample type (general or targeted), and socio-economic status and publication bias. Overall, this meta-analysis provides evidence to support the positive relationship between parenting self-efficacy and parents’ contributions to the strength of the home-school partnership. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
{"title":"The Associations Between Parenting Self-Efficacy and Parents’ Contributions to the Home-School Partnership Among Parents of Primary School Students: a Multilevel Meta-analysis","authors":"Tianyi Ma, Cassandra L. Tellegen, Julie Hodges, Matthew R. Sanders","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09937-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09937-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p>High-quality partnerships between families and schools can bring enormous benefits to the development, learning, and wellbeing of children. Decades of research has identified parenting self-efficacy as a key factor influencing parents’ contributions toward effective home-school partnerships. However, the strength of this association has varied significantly across studies with the aggregated strength remaining unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the associations between parenting self-efficacy and various aspects of parents’ contribution to the home-school partnership, namely home-based involvement, school-based involvement, home-school communication and relationships, as well as parental expectations and aspirations among parents of primary school students. Moderator effects were also examined. Through systematically searching six databases and screening papers, we included 50 independent studies involving 185 effect sizes (<i>N</i> = 20,043 children). Results showed a small to medium correlation between parenting self-efficacy and the multidimensional construct of home-school partnership outcomes (<i>r</i> = .189). The associations were stronger for education-focused parenting self-efficacy (<i>r</i> = .183) than general parenting self-efficacy (<i>r</i> = .114) and were stronger still for home-based participation (<i>r</i> = .248) and parental expectations and aspirations (<i>r</i> = .248) than school-based participation (<i>r</i> = .124) and parent-teacher communication/relationship (<i>r</i> = .090). We detected limited moderating effects of child gender, parent gender, ethnicity, sample type (general or targeted), and socio-economic status and publication bias. Overall, this meta-analysis provides evidence to support the positive relationship between parenting self-efficacy and parents’ contributions to the strength of the home-school partnership. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.\u0000</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013901","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}