Pub Date : 2020-12-04DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1848570
Joanna P. Williams
Abstract This article was adapted from the E. L. Thorndike Address that I delivered at the August, 2019 meeting of the American Psychological Association in Chicago. I trace my career as an educational psychologist in the context of the enormous changes, both theoretical and societal, that occurred during my years as an active researcher. Reading, the focus of my research (both beginning reading and reading comprehension), was very much affected by these changes, and so, of course, was I. I end with a discussion of one of today's prime paradigms for evaluating instructional research and offer suggestions for future investigations.
{"title":"What educational psychology means to me: The journey of a reading researcher","authors":"Joanna P. Williams","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1848570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1848570","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article was adapted from the E. L. Thorndike Address that I delivered at the August, 2019 meeting of the American Psychological Association in Chicago. I trace my career as an educational psychologist in the context of the enormous changes, both theoretical and societal, that occurred during my years as an active researcher. Reading, the focus of my research (both beginning reading and reading comprehension), was very much affected by these changes, and so, of course, was I. I end with a discussion of one of today's prime paradigms for evaluating instructional research and offer suggestions for future investigations.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"1 1","pages":"18 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85738947","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 : 2020-11-19DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1845173
E. Nussbaum
Abstract Collaborative argumentation in education, where students work together to construct and critique arguments, is an important social practice in many disciplines and can also develop conceptual understanding. This article addresses the evolution of my research agenda on collaborative argumentation from just scaffolding the generation of counterarguments and rebuttals in students’ discourse toward what I call critical, integrative argumentation (CIA). The CIA framework involves teaching students to ask critical questions to assess the strength and cogency of arguments. It also involves generating, in addition to conventional refutations, integrative refutations that (a) weigh costs and benefits (or for scientific arguments, the evidence for and plausibility of alternative models), or (b) involve design arguments (or for scientific arguments, the integration of multiple factors and constraints). Issues related to terminology, instruction, student learning progressions, teachers’ professional learning, public discourse, and the need to teach complex, critical thinking to students are discussed.
{"title":"Critical integrative argumentation: Toward complexity in students’ thinking","authors":"E. Nussbaum","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1845173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1845173","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Collaborative argumentation in education, where students work together to construct and critique arguments, is an important social practice in many disciplines and can also develop conceptual understanding. This article addresses the evolution of my research agenda on collaborative argumentation from just scaffolding the generation of counterarguments and rebuttals in students’ discourse toward what I call critical, integrative argumentation (CIA). The CIA framework involves teaching students to ask critical questions to assess the strength and cogency of arguments. It also involves generating, in addition to conventional refutations, integrative refutations that (a) weigh costs and benefits (or for scientific arguments, the evidence for and plausibility of alternative models), or (b) involve design arguments (or for scientific arguments, the integration of multiple factors and constraints). Issues related to terminology, instruction, student learning progressions, teachers’ professional learning, public discourse, and the need to teach complex, critical thinking to students are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"68 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74012269","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 : 2020-10-22DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086
Stephan Mende, Antje Proske, S. Narciss
Abstract Collaboration provides learners with opportunities to develop an understanding beyond what they could achieve alone. To this end, learners need to build on each other’s knowledge to draw new conclusions. This requires successful retrieval, inferencing, and mutual referencing during collaboration. Although individual preparation is considered as effective means to foster these processes it has not been systematically investigated whether, why, and under what conditions it does so. We revisit research on collaborative learning, collaborative memory, and group brainstorming to develop hypotheses about the cognitive advantages and disadvantages of individual preparation for collaboration and how these might be influenced by the design of the individual preparation phase. Subsequently, we test these hypotheses by systematically reviewing experimental studies. Results indicate that (a) individual preparation affects retrieval, inferencing, and referencing differently, and (b) generative preparation tasks and supporting learners’ cognitive group awareness can enhance the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages of individual preparation for collaboration.
{"title":"Individual preparation for collaborative learning: Systematic review and synthesis","authors":"Stephan Mende, Antje Proske, S. Narciss","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Collaboration provides learners with opportunities to develop an understanding beyond what they could achieve alone. To this end, learners need to build on each other’s knowledge to draw new conclusions. This requires successful retrieval, inferencing, and mutual referencing during collaboration. Although individual preparation is considered as effective means to foster these processes it has not been systematically investigated whether, why, and under what conditions it does so. We revisit research on collaborative learning, collaborative memory, and group brainstorming to develop hypotheses about the cognitive advantages and disadvantages of individual preparation for collaboration and how these might be influenced by the design of the individual preparation phase. Subsequently, we test these hypotheses by systematically reviewing experimental studies. Results indicate that (a) individual preparation affects retrieval, inferencing, and referencing differently, and (b) generative preparation tasks and supporting learners’ cognitive group awareness can enhance the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages of individual preparation for collaboration.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"17 1","pages":"29 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89520689","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 : 2020-09-08DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1796671
D. K. Meyer, P. Schutz
Abstract This article is an introduction to a special issue on qualitative and mixed methods research in educational psychology. In this special issue, we focus on contemporary research by educational psychologists who are using qualitative and mixed methods to highlight the complexity and rigor of their approaches and how their methodological choices are expanding the field of educational psychology. The articles reflect a different format and voice than is typical for Educational Psychologist in that authors share their inquiry worldviews, address issues of equity, discuss their reflexivity, and explain how they ensured trustworthiness while investigating the complex, socially and historically situated contexts of classrooms, schools, and educational systems. We believe the issues and research approaches discussed in this special issue will be valuable for graduate students who are exploring these research approaches and for all scholars who are weighing the costs and benefits of qualitative and mixed methods research.
{"title":"Why talk about qualitative and mixed methods in educational psychology? Introduction to special issue","authors":"D. K. Meyer, P. Schutz","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1796671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1796671","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article is an introduction to a special issue on qualitative and mixed methods research in educational psychology. In this special issue, we focus on contemporary research by educational psychologists who are using qualitative and mixed methods to highlight the complexity and rigor of their approaches and how their methodological choices are expanding the field of educational psychology. The articles reflect a different format and voice than is typical for Educational Psychologist in that authors share their inquiry worldviews, address issues of equity, discuss their reflexivity, and explain how they ensured trustworthiness while investigating the complex, socially and historically situated contexts of classrooms, schools, and educational systems. We believe the issues and research approaches discussed in this special issue will be valuable for graduate students who are exploring these research approaches and for all scholars who are weighing the costs and benefits of qualitative and mixed methods research.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"25 1","pages":"193 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84618833","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 : 2020-09-08DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1810043
S. B. Nolen
Abstract In this commentary, I identify some common themes in the six articles in this special issue, including the importance of aligning research methods with research questions and embracing the complexity of educational phenomena. Then, I reflect on some differences in how authors responded to the request to discuss the role of their inquiry world view and their own take on the meaning of equity in research. Finally, I offer a few reflections on the state of methodology in educational psychology.
{"title":"Challenging research norms in educational psychology","authors":"S. B. Nolen","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1810043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1810043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this commentary, I identify some common themes in the six articles in this special issue, including the importance of aligning research methods with research questions and embracing the complexity of educational phenomena. Then, I reflect on some differences in how authors responded to the request to discuss the role of their inquiry world view and their own take on the meaning of equity in research. Finally, I offer a few reflections on the state of methodology in educational psychology.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"13 1","pages":"267 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75588571","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 : 2020-09-04DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796
J. Plucker, Matthew C. Makel
Abstract Replication is a key activity in scientific endeavors. Yet explicit replications are rare in many fields, including education and psychology. In this article, we discuss the relevance and value of replication in educational psychology and analyze challenges regarding the role replications can and should play in research. These challenges include philosophical, methodological, professional, and utility concerns about replication in education and the social sciences more broadly. Finally, we discuss strategies that may address these concerns in educational psychology research.
{"title":"Replication is important for educational psychology: Recent developments and key issues","authors":"J. Plucker, Matthew C. Makel","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Replication is a key activity in scientific endeavors. Yet explicit replications are rare in many fields, including education and psychology. In this article, we discuss the relevance and value of replication in educational psychology and analyze challenges regarding the role replications can and should play in research. These challenges include philosophical, methodological, professional, and utility concerns about replication in education and the social sciences more broadly. Finally, we discuss strategies that may address these concerns in educational psychology research.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"10 1","pages":"90 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81279389","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 : 2020-08-24DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009
Erika A. Patall
Abstract Extensive debate of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “open science,” and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, transparent reporting, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research syntheses. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases in the decision making and practices of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses.
{"title":"Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses","authors":"Erika A. Patall","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Extensive debate of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “open science,” and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, transparent reporting, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research syntheses. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases in the decision making and practices of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"61 1","pages":"142 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84615213","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 : 2020-08-14DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1794871
S. Ryu
Abstract In this article, I address a specific methodological issue, namely the analysis of interaction that researchers undertaking design-based research (DBR) face when adopting a traditional approach to context. I first describe my methodological worldview in which the meaning of context is continuously negotiated by participants from sociocultural perspectives. I explain how pragmatic and dialectical stances strengthen the use of a mixed methods approach to capture learning in context. I argue for the combination of link and trajectory analyses to analyze interactions from learners’ perspectives. I illustrate how the combination of critical discourse analysis and social network analysis enables researchers to trace a trajectory of learning and discover what has changed over time. I discuss equity, reflexivity, and trustworthiness when conducting DBR. I conclude by presenting the limitations of this combined method while indicating future tasks and directions for using a mixed methods approach in DBR.
{"title":"The role of mixed methods in conducting design-based research","authors":"S. Ryu","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1794871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1794871","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I address a specific methodological issue, namely the analysis of interaction that researchers undertaking design-based research (DBR) face when adopting a traditional approach to context. I first describe my methodological worldview in which the meaning of context is continuously negotiated by participants from sociocultural perspectives. I explain how pragmatic and dialectical stances strengthen the use of a mixed methods approach to capture learning in context. I argue for the combination of link and trajectory analyses to analyze interactions from learners’ perspectives. I illustrate how the combination of critical discourse analysis and social network analysis enables researchers to trace a trajectory of learning and discover what has changed over time. I discuss equity, reflexivity, and trustworthiness when conducting DBR. I conclude by presenting the limitations of this combined method while indicating future tasks and directions for using a mixed methods approach in DBR.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"15 1","pages":"232 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87250326","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 : 2020-08-12DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1793156
Matthew T. McCrudden, G. Marchand
Abstract We discuss possible uses of multilevel mixed methods (M3) research in educational psychology. To begin, we describe M3 research and how such research can enable researchers to investigate potential variation at the group level and at the subgroup/individual level. We discuss why M3 research designs are well-suited to investigate contextualized, nested phenomenon in education. Then, we describe the five purposes for conducting mixed methods research and provide examples of how M3 designs can address these purposes. Next, we discuss our inquiry worldviews and how they inform our research. We describe three key assumptions (ontological realism, epistemic pluralism, and methodological eclecticism) and provide an example to illustrate how these assumptions can shape one’s research. Finally, we discuss how M3 research can be used to address equity and share several lessons we have learned as researchers who use mixed methods research.
{"title":"Multilevel mixed methods research and educational psychology","authors":"Matthew T. McCrudden, G. Marchand","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1793156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1793156","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We discuss possible uses of multilevel mixed methods (M3) research in educational psychology. To begin, we describe M3 research and how such research can enable researchers to investigate potential variation at the group level and at the subgroup/individual level. We discuss why M3 research designs are well-suited to investigate contextualized, nested phenomenon in education. Then, we describe the five purposes for conducting mixed methods research and provide examples of how M3 designs can address these purposes. Next, we discuss our inquiry worldviews and how they inform our research. We describe three key assumptions (ontological realism, epistemic pluralism, and methodological eclecticism) and provide an example to illustrate how these assumptions can shape one’s research. Finally, we discuss how M3 research can be used to address equity and share several lessons we have learned as researchers who use mixed methods research.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"47 1","pages":"197 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88790375","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 : 2020-08-12DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1793762
Jessica DeCuir-Gunby
Abstract The goal of this article is to explore the relationship between a researcher’s inquiry worldview and methodological choices. In the analysis, I explicate my own racialized positionality and Critical Race Theory (CRT) inquiry worldview. Also, I explain my use of critical race mixed methodology (CRMM), the combining of CRT and mixed methods. In doing so, I give specific examples from my program of research. The discussion ends by my providing implications for conducting CRMM in educational psychology.
{"title":"Using critical race mixed methodology to explore the experiences of African Americans in education","authors":"Jessica DeCuir-Gunby","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1793762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1793762","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The goal of this article is to explore the relationship between a researcher’s inquiry worldview and methodological choices. In the analysis, I explicate my own racialized positionality and Critical Race Theory (CRT) inquiry worldview. Also, I explain my use of critical race mixed methodology (CRMM), the combining of CRT and mixed methods. In doing so, I give specific examples from my program of research. The discussion ends by my providing implications for conducting CRMM in educational psychology.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"205 1","pages":"244 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80379205","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：