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":"6 1","pages":"132 - 141"},"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":"8 1","pages":"161 - 173"},"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: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1910466
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":"48 1","pages":"iii - iii"},"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: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961
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":"40 1","pages":"79 - 89"},"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: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329
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":"23 1","pages":"122 - 131"},"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":"41 1","pages":"101 - 109"},"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}
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":"27 1","pages":"215 - 242"},"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":"36 1","pages":"196 - 214"},"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":"27 1","pages":"175 - 195"},"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":"26 1","pages":"54 - 77"},"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}
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：