Pub Date : 2021-03-03DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1886103
Raluca Livinƫi, George Gunnesch-Luca, D. Iliescu
Abstract Research self-efficacy represents the adaptation of the social cognitive concept of self-efficacy to the field of academic and scientific research and is one of the best predictors of successfully engaging in research activities. The current meta-analysis focuses on the relationship between research self-efficacy and 14 other relevant variables suggested by Social Cognitive Career Theory and analyzes 85 published and unpublished studies conducted between 1989 and 2020 (n = 17,754, 209 effect sizes). The results indicate large associations between research self-efficacy and interest in research, research identity, intention/goals to pursue a career in research, research productivity, attitudes toward research, research training environment, and working alliance with the advisor, moderate associations with research outcome expectations, Holland’s investigative interests, research anxiety, and research mentoring experiences, as well as a small association with year in doctoral studies. There is no significant relationship between research self-efficacy and two other variables, gender and age of participants. Our findings help educators by showing ways through which to increase research self-efficacy in order to improve research training and career outcomes; the results suggest that effective routes for educators are the selection of students who have investigative vocational interests, an active control of possible research anxieties, development of a strong research-oriented culture in the research group and the development of a mentoring and transformational relationship with their trainees.
{"title":"Research self-efficacy: A meta-analysis","authors":"Raluca Livinƫi, George Gunnesch-Luca, D. Iliescu","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1886103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1886103","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research self-efficacy represents the adaptation of the social cognitive concept of self-efficacy to the field of academic and scientific research and is one of the best predictors of successfully engaging in research activities. The current meta-analysis focuses on the relationship between research self-efficacy and 14 other relevant variables suggested by Social Cognitive Career Theory and analyzes 85 published and unpublished studies conducted between 1989 and 2020 (n = 17,754, 209 effect sizes). The results indicate large associations between research self-efficacy and interest in research, research identity, intention/goals to pursue a career in research, research productivity, attitudes toward research, research training environment, and working alliance with the advisor, moderate associations with research outcome expectations, Holland’s investigative interests, research anxiety, and research mentoring experiences, as well as a small association with year in doctoral studies. There is no significant relationship between research self-efficacy and two other variables, gender and age of participants. Our findings help educators by showing ways through which to increase research self-efficacy in order to improve research training and career outcomes; the results suggest that effective routes for educators are the selection of students who have investigative vocational interests, an active control of possible research anxieties, development of a strong research-oriented culture in the research group and the development of a mentoring and transformational relationship with their trainees.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82244415","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 : 2021-02-05DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379
Kathryn S. McCarthy, D. McNamara
Abstract Prior knowledge is one of the strongest contributors to comprehension, but there is little specificity about different aspects of prior knowledge and how they impact comprehension. This article introduces the Multidimensional Knowledge in Text Comprehension framework, which conceptualizes prior knowledge along four intersecting dimensions: amount, accuracy, specificity, and coherence. Amount refers to how many relevant concepts the reader knows. Accuracy refers to the extent to which the reader’s knowledge is correct. Specificity refers the degree to which the knowledge is related to information in the target text. Coherence refers to the interconnectedness of prior knowledge. Conceptualizing prior content knowledge along these dimensions deepens understanding of the construct and lends to more specific predictions about how learners process information. Considering knowledge across multiple dimensions is crucially important to the development and selection of prior knowledge assessments and, in turn, educators’ ability to capitalize on learners’ strengths across various comprehension tasks.
{"title":"The Multidimensional Knowledge in Text Comprehension framework","authors":"Kathryn S. McCarthy, D. McNamara","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Prior knowledge is one of the strongest contributors to comprehension, but there is little specificity about different aspects of prior knowledge and how they impact comprehension. This article introduces the Multidimensional Knowledge in Text Comprehension framework, which conceptualizes prior knowledge along four intersecting dimensions: amount, accuracy, specificity, and coherence. Amount refers to how many relevant concepts the reader knows. Accuracy refers to the extent to which the reader’s knowledge is correct. Specificity refers the degree to which the knowledge is related to information in the target text. Coherence refers to the interconnectedness of prior knowledge. Conceptualizing prior content knowledge along these dimensions deepens understanding of the construct and lends to more specific predictions about how learners process information. Considering knowledge across multiple dimensions is crucially important to the development and selection of prior knowledge assessments and, in turn, educators’ ability to capitalize on learners’ strengths across various comprehension tasks.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91263079","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 : 2021-01-24DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1861948
Allison Zengilowski, Brendan A. Schuetze, B. Nash, D. Schallert
Abstract Refutation texts, rhetorical tools designed to reduce misconceptions, have garnered attention across four decades and many studies. Yet, the ability of a refutation text to change a learner’s mind on a topic needs to be qualified and modulated. In this critical review, we bring attention to sources of constraints often overlooked by refutation text researchers. Methodological issues we identified centered on problems of using a single topic (or very few) within a study, the role of testing in conceptual change, and the durability of change beyond an immediate posttest. Theoretical issues included the interpretation of attentional measures, what knowledge domains lend themselves to refutation, what makes a text refutational, and unexplored assumptions about how conceptual change occurs. We sought to clarify how refutation texts may function as an antidote to misconceptions and how future research on refutation texts can better inform understanding of this phenomenon.
{"title":"A critical review of the refutation text literature: Methodological confounds, theoretical problems, and possible solutions","authors":"Allison Zengilowski, Brendan A. Schuetze, B. Nash, D. Schallert","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1861948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1861948","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Refutation texts, rhetorical tools designed to reduce misconceptions, have garnered attention across four decades and many studies. Yet, the ability of a refutation text to change a learner’s mind on a topic needs to be qualified and modulated. In this critical review, we bring attention to sources of constraints often overlooked by refutation text researchers. Methodological issues we identified centered on problems of using a single topic (or very few) within a study, the role of testing in conceptual change, and the durability of change beyond an immediate posttest. Theoretical issues included the interpretation of attentional measures, what knowledge domains lend themselves to refutation, what makes a text refutational, and unexplored assumptions about how conceptual change occurs. We sought to clarify how refutation texts may function as an antidote to misconceptions and how future research on refutation texts can better inform understanding of this phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89483308","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
J. Reeve, S. Cheon
Abstract Autonomy-supportive teaching is the adoption of a student-focused attitude and an understanding interpersonal tone that enables the skillful enactment of seven autonomy-satisfying instructional behaviors to serve two purposes—support intrinsic motivation and support internalization. Using self-determination theory principles and empirical findings, researchers have developed and implemented numerous teacher-focused and methodologically-rigorous interventions to provide teachers with the professional developmental experience they need to learn how to become more autonomy supportive. The findings from 51 autonomy-supportive teaching interventions (including 38 randomized control trials) collectively show that (1) teachers can learn how to become more autonomy supportive during instruction (autonomy-supportive teaching is malleable) and, once learned, (2) this greater autonomy-supportive teaching produces a wide range of educationally important student, teacher, and classroom climate benefits (autonomy-supportive teaching is beneficial). Recognizing this, the article shows how the recent surge in autonomy-supportive intervention research has advanced the conceptual understanding of the nature of autonomy-supportive teaching and clarified its potential to improve educational practice.
{"title":"Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice","authors":"J. Reeve, S. Cheon","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Autonomy-supportive teaching is the adoption of a student-focused attitude and an understanding interpersonal tone that enables the skillful enactment of seven autonomy-satisfying instructional behaviors to serve two purposes—support intrinsic motivation and support internalization. Using self-determination theory principles and empirical findings, researchers have developed and implemented numerous teacher-focused and methodologically-rigorous interventions to provide teachers with the professional developmental experience they need to learn how to become more autonomy supportive. The findings from 51 autonomy-supportive teaching interventions (including 38 randomized control trials) collectively show that (1) teachers can learn how to become more autonomy supportive during instruction (autonomy-supportive teaching is malleable) and, once learned, (2) this greater autonomy-supportive teaching produces a wide range of educationally important student, teacher, and classroom climate benefits (autonomy-supportive teaching is beneficial). Recognizing this, the article shows how the recent surge in autonomy-supportive intervention research has advanced the conceptual understanding of the nature of autonomy-supportive teaching and clarified its potential to improve educational practice.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87689640","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 : 2021-01-01Epub Date: 2021-03-31DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593
Jesse I Fleming, Sarah E Wilson, Sara A Hart, William J Therrien, Bryan G Cook
Openness is a foundational principle in science. Making the tools and products of scientific research openly accessible advances core aims and values of education researchers, such as the credibility, equity, impact, and efficiency of research. The digital revolution has expanded opportunities for providing greater access to research. In this article, we examine three open-science practices-open data and code, open materials, and open access-that education researchers can use to increase accessibility to the tools and products of research in the field. For each open-science practice, we discuss what the practice is and how it works, its primary benefits, some important limitations and challenges, and two thorny issues.
{"title":"Open Accessibility in Education Research: Enhancing the Credibility, Equity, Impact, and Efficiency of Research.","authors":"Jesse I Fleming, Sarah E Wilson, Sara A Hart, William J Therrien, Bryan G Cook","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593","DOIUrl":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Openness is a foundational principle in science. Making the tools and products of scientific research openly accessible advances core aims and values of education researchers, such as the credibility, equity, impact, and efficiency of research. The digital revolution has expanded opportunities for providing greater access to research. In this article, we examine three open-science practices-open data and code, open materials, and open access-that education researchers can use to increase accessibility to the tools and products of research in the field. For each open-science practice, we discuss what the practice is and how it works, its primary benefits, some important limitations and challenges, and two thorny issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9109832/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78172634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：