Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1991356
R. Pekrun
Abstract It is plausible to assume that teachers need motivation, emotions, and self-regulation to teach and promote students’ learning. However, as documented in this special issue, extant research is inconsistent and has documented weak effects of these teacher variables at best. I discuss possible reasons for this paradoxical failure to more fully document the importance of motivation, emotion, and self-regulation. Specifically, in addition to conceptual problems, research has focused too much on using between-person designs, variables with truncated distributions and reduced variance, and samples from single Western countries. To better understand the effects of teacher variables on student outcomes, we need to (1) develop and test more fine-grained theoretical models explaining the mechanisms mediating these effects, (2) complement between-teacher research by within-teacher studies, and (3) examine teacher-student processes across cultural and historical contexts. Collaboration with other disciplines may be needed, including economics, sociology, political science, computer science, and history.
{"title":"Teachers need more than knowledge: Why motivation, emotion, and self-regulation are indispensable","authors":"R. Pekrun","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1991356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1991356","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is plausible to assume that teachers need motivation, emotions, and self-regulation to teach and promote students’ learning. However, as documented in this special issue, extant research is inconsistent and has documented weak effects of these teacher variables at best. I discuss possible reasons for this paradoxical failure to more fully document the importance of motivation, emotion, and self-regulation. Specifically, in addition to conceptual problems, research has focused too much on using between-person designs, variables with truncated distributions and reduced variance, and samples from single Western countries. To better understand the effects of teacher variables on student outcomes, we need to (1) develop and test more fine-grained theoretical models explaining the mechanisms mediating these effects, (2) complement between-teacher research by within-teacher studies, and (3) examine teacher-student processes across cultural and historical contexts. Collaboration with other disciplines may be needed, including economics, sociology, political science, computer science, and history.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73046394","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 : 2021-09-15DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1975121
G. Sinatra
Abstract The psychology of science resistance, doubt, and denial has never had clearer consequences than during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript explores how misconceptions about climate change, vaccines, and COVID-19 cannot be understood apart from the conscious and unconscious motivations and emotions which contribute to public (mis)understanding of science. Drawing on research presented during my Presidential Address for Division 15 of the American Psychological Association in 2020, interventions designed to upend misconceptions and promote understanding and appreciation of science in formal and informal settings are reviewed and recommendations are proposed for promoting public understanding of science in the future.
{"title":"Motivational and emotional impacts on public (mis)understanding of science","authors":"G. Sinatra","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1975121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1975121","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The psychology of science resistance, doubt, and denial has never had clearer consequences than during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript explores how misconceptions about climate change, vaccines, and COVID-19 cannot be understood apart from the conscious and unconscious motivations and emotions which contribute to public (mis)understanding of science. Drawing on research presented during my Presidential Address for Division 15 of the American Psychological Association in 2020, interventions designed to upend misconceptions and promote understanding and appreciation of science in formal and informal settings are reviewed and recommendations are proposed for promoting public understanding of science in the future.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78540536","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 : 2021-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1951734
S. Graham
Abstract This article is an expanded version of my presentation to Division 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Association for the Career Achievement Award for Distinguished Psychological Contributions to Education in 2019. It provides an overview of research conducted by colleagues and I that examined the following four topics: (a) the role of writing knowledge, strategies, motivation, and skills in writing and students’ growth as writers; (b) the connections between writing, language, reading, and learning; (c) the identification of effective writing practices; and (d) the current state of writing instruction in schools. For each topic, I provide examples of the logic and the different types of evidence collected in studying each area. Concluding comments focus on areas still in need of investigation.
{"title":"A walk through the landscape of writing: Insights from a program of writing research","authors":"S. Graham","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1951734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1951734","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article is an expanded version of my presentation to Division 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Association for the Career Achievement Award for Distinguished Psychological Contributions to Education in 2019. It provides an overview of research conducted by colleagues and I that examined the following four topics: (a) the role of writing knowledge, strategies, motivation, and skills in writing and students’ growth as writers; (b) the connections between writing, language, reading, and learning; (c) the identification of effective writing practices; and (d) the current state of writing instruction in schools. For each topic, I provide examples of the logic and the different types of evidence collected in studying each area. Concluding comments focus on areas still in need of investigation.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76584389","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 : 2021-07-23DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700
Bianca A. Simonsmeier, Maja Flaig, Anne Deiglmayr, L. Schalk, Michael Schneider
Abstract It is often hypothesized that prior knowledge strongly predicts learning performance. It can affect learning positively mediated through some processes and negatively mediated through others. We examined the relation between prior knowledge and learning in a meta-analysis of 8776 effect sizes. The stability of individual differences, that is, the correlation between pretest and posttest knowledge, was high (r P + = .534). The predictive power of prior knowledge for learning, i.e., the correlation between pretest knowledge and normalized knowledge gains, was low (r NG + = −.059), almost normally distributed, and had a large 95% prediction interval [–.688, .621]. This strong variability falsifies general statements such as “knowledge is power” as well as “the effect of prior knowledge is negligible.” It calls for systematic research on the conditions under which prior knowledge has positive, negative, or negligible effects on learning. This requires more experiments on the processes mediating the effects of prior knowledge and thresholds for useful levels of prior knowledge.
摘要人们经常假设先验知识对学习表现有很强的预测作用。它可以通过一些过程积极地影响学习，也可以通过另一些过程消极地影响学习。我们在一项包含8776个效应量的元分析中检验了先验知识与学习之间的关系。个体差异的稳定性，即测前知识与测后知识的相关性较高(r P + = .534)。先验知识对学习的预测能力，即预试知识与归一化知识增益之间的相关性较低(r NG + = - 0.059)，几乎为正态分布，并且具有较大的95%预测区间[-]。688年,.621]。这种强烈的可变性否定了诸如“知识就是力量”以及“先验知识的影响可以忽略不计”之类的一般陈述。它要求系统地研究在哪些条件下，先验知识对学习有积极、消极或可忽略的影响。这需要在先验知识和先验知识有用水平阈值的中介过程上进行更多的实验。
{"title":"Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis","authors":"Bianca A. Simonsmeier, Maja Flaig, Anne Deiglmayr, L. Schalk, Michael Schneider","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is often hypothesized that prior knowledge strongly predicts learning performance. It can affect learning positively mediated through some processes and negatively mediated through others. We examined the relation between prior knowledge and learning in a meta-analysis of 8776 effect sizes. The stability of individual differences, that is, the correlation between pretest and posttest knowledge, was high (r P + = .534). The predictive power of prior knowledge for learning, i.e., the correlation between pretest knowledge and normalized knowledge gains, was low (r NG + = −.059), almost normally distributed, and had a large 95% prediction interval [–.688, .621]. This strong variability falsifies general statements such as “knowledge is power” as well as “the effect of prior knowledge is negligible.” It calls for systematic research on the conditions under which prior knowledge has positive, negative, or negligible effects on learning. This requires more experiments on the processes mediating the effects of prior knowledge and thresholds for useful levels of prior knowledge.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79530676","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1898962
J. Flake
Abstract An increased focus on transparency and replication in science has stimulated reform in research practices and dissemination. As a result, the research culture is changing: the use of preregistration is on the rise, access to data and materials is increasing, and large-scale replication studies are more common. In this article, I discuss two problems the methodological reform movement is now ready to tackle given the progress thus far and how educational psychology is particularly well suited to contribute. The first problem is that there is a lack of transparency and rigor in measurement development and use. The second problem is caused by the first—replication research is difficult and potentially futile as long as the first problem persists. I describe how to expand transparent practices into measure use and how construct validation can be implemented to bolster the validity of replication studies.
{"title":"Strengthening the foundation of educational psychology by integrating construct validation into open science reform","authors":"J. Flake","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1898962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1898962","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An increased focus on transparency and replication in science has stimulated reform in research practices and dissemination. As a result, the research culture is changing: the use of preregistration is on the rise, access to data and materials is increasing, and large-scale replication studies are more common. In this article, I discuss two problems the methodological reform movement is now ready to tackle given the progress thus far and how educational psychology is particularly well suited to contribute. The first problem is that there is a lack of transparency and rigor in measurement development and use. The second problem is caused by the first—replication research is difficult and potentially futile as long as the first problem persists. I describe how to expand transparent practices into measure use and how construct validation can be implemented to bolster the validity of replication studies.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74976998","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1901709
K. Wentzel
Abstract In this article, I comment on the potential benefits and limitations of open science reforms for improving the transparency and accountability of research, and enhancing the credibility of research findings within communities of policy and practice. Specifically, I discuss the role of replication and reproducibility of research in promoting better quality studies, the identification of generalizable principles, and relevance for practitioners and policymakers. Second, I suggest that greater attention to theory might contribute to the impact of open science practices, and discuss ways in which theory has implications for sampling, measurement, and research design. Ambiguities concerning the aims of preregistration and registered reports also are highlighted. In conclusion, I discuss structural roadblocks to open science reform and reflect on the relevance of these reforms for educational psychology.
{"title":"Open science reforms: Strengths, challenges, and future directions","authors":"K. Wentzel","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1901709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1901709","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I comment on the potential benefits and limitations of open science reforms for improving the transparency and accountability of research, and enhancing the credibility of research findings within communities of policy and practice. Specifically, I discuss the role of replication and reproducibility of research in promoting better quality studies, the identification of generalizable principles, and relevance for practitioners and policymakers. Second, I suggest that greater attention to theory might contribute to the impact of open science practices, and discuss ways in which theory has implications for sampling, measurement, and research design. Ambiguities concerning the aims of preregistration and registered reports also are highlighted. In conclusion, I discuss structural roadblocks to open science reform and reflect on the relevance of these reforms for educational psychology.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84256617","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961
Hunter Gehlbach, Carly D. Robinson
Abstract Recently, scholars have noted how several “old-school” practices—a host of long-standing scientific norms—in combination, sometimes compromise the credibility of research. In response, other scholarly fields have developed several “open-science” norms and practices to address these credibility issues. Against this backdrop, this special issue explores the extent to which and how these norms should be adopted and adapted for educational psychology and education more broadly. Our introductory article contextualizes the special issue’s goals by overviewing the historical context that led to open science norms (particularly in medicine and psychology); providing a conceptual map to illustrate the interrelationships between various old-school as well as open-science practices; and then describing educational psychologists’ opportunity to benefit from and contribute to the translation of these norms to novel research contexts. We conclude by previewing the articles in the special issue.
{"title":"From old school to open science: The implications of new research norms for educational psychology and beyond","authors":"Hunter Gehlbach, Carly D. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently, scholars have noted how several “old-school” practices—a host of long-standing scientific norms—in combination, sometimes compromise the credibility of research. In response, other scholarly fields have developed several “open-science” norms and practices to address these credibility issues. Against this backdrop, this special issue explores the extent to which and how these norms should be adopted and adapted for educational psychology and education more broadly. Our introductory article contextualizes the special issue’s goals by overviewing the historical context that led to open science norms (particularly in medicine and psychology); providing a conceptual map to illustrate the interrelationships between various old-school as well as open-science practices; and then describing educational psychologists’ opportunity to benefit from and contribute to the translation of these norms to novel research contexts. We conclude by previewing the articles in the special issue.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88463473","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1910466
Rohan Arcot, Amy J. Arthur, S. Barnes, Lindsay L Benster, Shannon E. Berg, Leah B. Cherner, Claire Chuter, Kelsie J. Dawson, Lily S. Fritz, Madelyn Gardner, Lindsay M. Lanteri, Jessica Lasky-Fink, Kaitlyn E. May, Michael W. McGarrah, Nan Mu, Prem Umang Satyavolu, Wendy S. Wei, Qiyang Zhang
We would like to thank all of the reviewers who provided invaluable feedback on the articles in this special issue. In addition to Educational Psychologist’s standard peer review process, several early career scholars volunteered to participate in a complementary Junior Scholar Review process. These early career scholars provided authors with feedback on their manuscripts and ensured that the articles were accessible for a wide range of audiences.
{"title":"Acknowledgments","authors":"Rohan Arcot, Amy J. Arthur, S. Barnes, Lindsay L Benster, Shannon E. Berg, Leah B. Cherner, Claire Chuter, Kelsie J. Dawson, Lily S. Fritz, Madelyn Gardner, Lindsay M. Lanteri, Jessica Lasky-Fink, Kaitlyn E. May, Michael W. McGarrah, Nan Mu, Prem Umang Satyavolu, Wendy S. Wei, Qiyang Zhang","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1910466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1910466","url":null,"abstract":"We would like to thank all of the reviewers who provided invaluable feedback on the articles in this special issue. In addition to Educational Psychologist’s standard peer review process, several early career scholars volunteered to participate in a complementary Junior Scholar Review process. These early career scholars provided authors with feedback on their manuscripts and ensured that the articles were accessible for a wide range of audiences.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84781517","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329
David Mellor
Abstract Improving research culture to value transparency and rigor is necessary to engage in a productive “Credibility Revolution.” The field of educational psychology is well positioned to act toward this goal. It will take specific actions by both grassroots groups plus leadership to set standards that will ensure that getting published, funded, or hired is determined by universally supported ideals. These improved standards must ensure that transparency, rigor, and credibility are valued above novelty, impact, and incredibility. Grassroots groups advocate for change and share experience so that the next generation of researchers have the experience needed to sustain these early moves. Each community can take inspiration from others that have made shifts toward better practices. These instances provide opportunities for emulating trail-blazers, training for new practices such as preregistration, and constructively evaluating or criticizing practice in ways that advances the reputation of all involved.
{"title":"Improving norms in research culture to incentivize transparency and rigor","authors":"David Mellor","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Improving research culture to value transparency and rigor is necessary to engage in a productive “Credibility Revolution.” The field of educational psychology is well positioned to act toward this goal. It will take specific actions by both grassroots groups plus leadership to set standards that will ensure that getting published, funded, or hired is determined by universally supported ideals. These improved standards must ensure that transparency, rigor, and credibility are valued above novelty, impact, and incredibility. Grassroots groups advocate for change and share experience so that the next generation of researchers have the experience needed to sustain these early moves. Each community can take inspiration from others that have made shifts toward better practices. These instances provide opportunities for emulating trail-blazers, training for new practices such as preregistration, and constructively evaluating or criticizing practice in ways that advances the reputation of all involved.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89135754","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 : 2021-04-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1900851
J. Reich
Abstract Preregistration and registered reports are two promising open science practices for increasing transparency in the scientific process. In particular, they create transparency around one of the most consequential distinctions in research design: the data analytics decisions made before data collection and post-hoc decisions made afterwards. Preregistration involves publishing a time-stamped record of a study design before data collection or analysis. Registered reports are a publishing approach that facilitates the evaluation of research without regard for the direction or magnitude of findings. In this article, I evaluate opportunities and challenges for these open science methods, offer initial guidelines for their use, explore relevant tensions around new practices, and illustrate examples from educational psychology and social science.
{"title":"Preregistration and registered reports","authors":"J. Reich","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1900851","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1900851","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Preregistration and registered reports are two promising open science practices for increasing transparency in the scientific process. In particular, they create transparency around one of the most consequential distinctions in research design: the data analytics decisions made before data collection and post-hoc decisions made afterwards. Preregistration involves publishing a time-stamped record of a study design before data collection or analysis. Registered reports are a publishing approach that facilitates the evaluation of research without regard for the direction or magnitude of findings. In this article, I evaluate opportunities and challenges for these open science methods, offer initial guidelines for their use, explore relevant tensions around new practices, and illustrate examples from educational psychology and social science.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89161676","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：