Educational Psychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Intensive Longitudinal Methods in School Research: A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"Carina Schreiber, Michael Becker","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10203-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10203-x","url":null,"abstract":"Intensive longitudinal methods—such as the experience sampling method, ambulatory assessments, or daily diaries—have increased in popularity in recent years. These new methods offer valuable real-time insights into individuals’ daily lives by capturing phenomena as they occur. Their introduction, however, comes with challenges and uncertainties regarding study design, implementation, and reporting. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of the common practices in intensive longitudinal methods in school research and evaluates the transparency and consistency in the reporting of methods and rationales for methodological choices. Our review reveals substantial heterogeneity in the use of intensive longitudinal methods but a predominant focus on students and their experiences during school lessons. Methods and rationales for methodological choices are often insufficiently reported, and while we found an improvement in recent years, transparency still remains an issue. We also offer a comprehensive checklist of reporting criteria for intensive longitudinal methods. We emphasize the importance of reporting standards for intensive longitudinal studies to promote transparency and comparability.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148728806","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}

{"title":"Toward Agent-Based Educational Science: Rethinking Educational Research in the Age of AI","authors":"Yu Zhang, Jianxiao Jiang, Xin Tang","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10209-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10209-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148728787","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}

{"title":"Four Decades After the Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect: Critical Boundary Tests and Integrative Models of Mean-Context, Ordinal-Standing, and Distributional-Scaling in 46 Countries","authors":"Herbert W. Marsh","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10200-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10200-0","url":null,"abstract":"The Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect (BFLPE) is the negative association between class-average achievement and students’ academic self-concept after controlling individual achievement. Over four decades, the BFLPE has become one of educational psychology’s most robust cross-national findings. However, psychological, economic, and contextual-judgment traditions propose different representations of social comparison: adaptation-level models emphasize contextual means, ordinal-standing models emphasize relative rank, and distributional-scaling models emphasize broader properties of local achievement distributions. Using TIMSS 2019 Grade 8 mathematics data from 46 countries (11,684 classes; 262,988 students), this study provides the first large-scale cross-national test of these formulations within a unified modeling framework. Consistent with prior BFLPE research, higher individual achievement positively predicted mathematics self-concept, whereas higher classroom mean achievement negatively predicted it. Ordinal standing also positively predicted self-concept in simpler models. However, strong ordinal-standing formulations predict that the negative contextual-mean effect should substantially attenuate or disappear when ordinal position is fixed at the top of the classroom distribution. Inconsistent with this prediction, the BFLPE remained evident even for the highest-ranked student in each class. Models integrating all three approaches further indicated that much of the apparent ordinal-rank effect reflected broader forms of distributionally scaled relative achievement embedded within classroom distributions. The findings support an integrative interpretation in which ordinal standing is relevant, not sufficient: contextual means, ordinal standing, and distributional structure jointly shape comparative self-evaluation, while contextual means remained the most robust comparative indicator. More broadly, the study highlights the Statistical–Mechanism Gap Fallacy: interpreting statistical contextual indicators as psychologically transparent representations of comparison mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"279 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148693390","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}

{"title":"Promoting Engagement in Elementary School: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention Effects","authors":"Julie Goulet, Isabelle Archambault, Christine Maltais, Ophélie Gilbert-Blanchard, Michel Janosz","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10204-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10204-w","url":null,"abstract":"Vital to long-term academic success, student engagement is a key intervention target, especially during the early years of schooling when initial signs of disengagement may appear. The primary goal of this systematic review was to identify interventions promoting elementary student engagement and determine the best intervention approaches. We systematically searched Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (July 2024) to identify intervention studies examining behavioral, cognitive, or affective engagement among elementary students, as compared to standard instruction, through experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Methodological bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al., <xref ref-type=\"bibr\">2019</xref>). Data were synthesized through meta-analyses and subgroup analyses using a three-level model with robust variance estimation. Forty-six interventions (38,225 students) met inclusion criteria, reporting data for behavioral (<italic>k</italic> = 41; <italic>n</italic> = 36,122), affective (<italic>k</italic> = 14; <italic>n</italic> = 5,065), and cognitive engagement (<italic>k</italic> = 5; <italic>n</italic> = 1,907). Three main types of intervention were identified and compared for behavioral engagement: teacher support (i.e., professional development; <italic>g</italic> = .503, 95%CI [.105, .901], <italic>k</italic> = 9), student-directed (<italic>g</italic> = .370, 95%CI [.198, .542], <italic>k</italic> = 27), and multimodal interventions (<italic>g</italic> = .385, 95%CI [.202, .569],<italic> k</italic> = 4). Among student-directed interventions, three strategies were compared: social-emotional skills development (<italic>g</italic> = .171, 95%CI [.027, .314], <italic>k</italic> = 12), learning strategy development (<italic>g</italic> = .801, 95%CI [.318, 1.285],<italic> k</italic> = 6), and classroom physical activity (<italic>g</italic> = .478, 95%CI [-.100, 1.056],<italic> k</italic> = 7). Methodological biases were also used as moderators. Evidence is strongest for behavioral engagement, for which teacher-focused and learning-strategy interventions appear particularly promising. Conclusions for affective and cognitive engagement remain more tentative.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148693389","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}

{"title":"The Impact of Writing Instruction for English Language Learners in the United States: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"A. Angelique Aitken, Steve Graham, Yucheng Cao, Adiba Nusrat","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10197-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10197-6","url":null,"abstract":"Writing is a cornerstone of academic success, yet English language learners (ELL) in the United States must learn to write while also developing English proficiency. Although descriptive reviews suggest that writing instruction can benefit these learners, no prior meta-analysis has synthesized its effects quantitatively. This study addressed that gap by synthesizing 39 comparisons in 20 experimental and quasi-experimental investigations of writing interventions in K-12 classrooms with ELL students in the United States. From 122 effect sizes, the overall impact of writing instruction was statistically significant and positive (<italic>g</italic> = 0.33). Writing quality was the most frequently assessed outcome (in 33 comparisons across 16 studies) and showed an effect of 0.33. With regard to the most often implemented interventions, strategy instruction (<italic>g</italic> = 0.36) was statistically significant, while process writing (<italic>g</italic> = 0.51) yielded a meaningful but not statistically significant result. Moderator analyses found no significant variation by study quality indicators, participant characteristics, or intervention characteristics. Findings underscore the promise of writing interventions for English language learners in the United States and suggest directions for future research, including the importance of examining linguistic supports.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148717359","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}

{"title":"Dimensionality, Reliability, and Validity of Academic Resilience Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Könül Karimova, Hsing-Fen Tu","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10207-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10207-7","url":null,"abstract":"Academic resilience refers to students’ capacity to maintain or regain adaptive academic functioning when confronted with academic stressors, setbacks, failure, or threat. Although the construct is often considered central to educational psychology, its psychometric foundations remain fragmented. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence from 46 studies evaluating academic resilience and closely related academic buoyancy measures. Evidence on dimensionality was mixed. Unidimensional models showed higher pass rates for CFI, TLI, and SRMR, whereas multidimensional models showed a higher RMSEA pass rate; however, exploratory Welch comparisons showed significant differences for CFI and TLI, but not for RMSEA or SRMR, indicating that the available global-fit evidence does not clearly favor either model family. Pooled internal consistency was high, <italic>α/</italic><inline-formula><tex-math>documentclass[12pt]{minimal} usepackage{amsmath} usepackage{wasysym} usepackage{amsfonts} usepackage{amssymb} usepackage{amsbsy} usepackage{mathrsfs} usepackage{upgreek} setlength{oddsidemargin}{-69pt} begin{document}$$omega$$end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>= 0.89, 95% CI [0.86, 0.90], 95% PI [0.62, 0.97], although heterogeneity was substantial. Construct validity evidence showed a moderate pooled association with theoretically relevant external criteria, <italic>r</italic> = .55, 95% CI [0.46, 0.63], 95% PI [-0.19, 0.89], with substantial variability across outcome domains. After direction alignment, associations were strongest for distress and vulnerability, learning strategy/self-regulation, and resilience-aligned constructs, and weakest for academic achievement. Overall, the findings suggest that current academic resilience measures are reliable and show theoretically coherent validity patterns. Dimensionality evidence indicates that many measures may be dominated by a broad general resilience factor, but the available global-fit comparisons do not establish whether proposed subdimensions provide differentiated explanatory, diagnostic, or predictive value beyond composite scores. Future research should further clarify construct boundaries, strengthen content-validity evidence, and directly compare competing measurement models.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148717358","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}

{"title":"Learning to Read in Chinese: A Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of Cognitive-Linguistic Skills in Chinese Word Reading","authors":"Xiaomeng Li, Dongbo Zhang, Shuxin Liu, Yizhen Liu","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10205-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10205-9","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports the first meta-analytic structural equation modeling on the associations of lower-level cognitive-linguistic skills (rapid automatized naming/RAN, orthographic awareness/OA, phonological awareness/PA, morphological awareness/MA, and vocabulary) with word reading among native Chinese-speaking children, based on pooled correlational matrices (<italic>k</italic> = 446; <italic>N</italic> = 70,734). Moderator analyses explored how the (relative) associations of these skills varied across readers of different Chinese scripts, literacy-instruction contexts, grade levels, and word reading tasks. We found that (1) all skills were significantly and independently associated with word reading with the meaning-based pathways (MA and vocabulary) playing a more salient role than code-based pathways (OA and PA); (2) children reading the traditional script showed stronger associations of OA and MA with word reading than those reading the simplified script; (3) contexts involving phonological instruction were associated with a stronger role of PA but a reduced role of MA in word reading; (4) developmentally, there was a decreasing association of code-based strategies but an increasing association of meaning-based strategies (i.e., increased effects of MA and vocabulary) with word reading; and (5) the association of RAN was stronger with word reading fluency than with accuracy, whereas a converse pattern was found for that of PA. These findings pointed to interrelated patterns of cognitive-linguistic skills in Chinese word reading. They suggested universal and language/script-specific processes in reading acquisition, while also underscoring the differential functioning of component processes in reading acquisition across contexts, developmental stages, and reading tasks.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"328 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148693391","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}

{"title":"When Can AI Models Explain Learning? Validity Criteria for AI as Cognitive Models in Education","authors":"Peng Wang, Olga Viberg, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Samuel Greiff","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10202-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10202-y","url":null,"abstract":"Traditional verbal theories in educational psychology often remain underspecified at the mechanistic level. While they offer rich descriptive constructs and conceptual insights, they provide limited accounts of how learning processes unfold dynamically and causally. Here, “verbal” denotes theories stated in prose and qualitative relations rather than as formal, computational process models. This lack of mechanistic precision constrains rigorous theory testing, limits integration across levels of analysis, and reduces the potential to design interventions grounded in explanatory understanding of learning processes. In this Review, we synthesize an emerging paradigm that treats artificial intelligence (AI) systems not merely as predictive tools or instructional technologies, but as cognitive models of learners, explicit, runnable instantiations of theoretical assumptions about cognition and learning. Our central question is not whether AI systems can serve as cognitive models, but when they should be allowed to count as such. We therefore organize the Review around explicit validity criteria, theoretical grounding, construct validity, mechanistic transparency, alignment with human learning trajectories, error-signature matching, causal-intervention tests, ecological validity, and instructional usefulness, that an AI system must satisfy before its cognitive-model status is granted rather than assumed. We examine how major families of AI models, including neural networks, reinforcement learning agents, cognitive architectures, and large language models, have been used to operationalize core educational constructs such as memory, strategy use, motivation, self-regulation, and social learning. Across these approaches, we highlight how mechanistic transparency, interpretability, and alignment with human learning trajectories and error patterns are essential for explanatory validity. We further discuss methodological tools, such as representation analysis, ablation, and trajectory-level comparison, that enable causal inference about learning mechanisms within models. Finally, we outline key challenges and future directions, including construct validity, ecological realism, individual differences, and ethical accountability. By positioning AI as a theoretical instrument rather than solely an engineering solution, this Review argues that AI-based cognitive models can, when they satisfy these criteria, help transform abstract learning theories into precise, testable, and educationally actionable accounts of how students learn.","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"351 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148539317","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}

{"title":"Unveiling Patterns of Generative AI Integration That Enhance Learning: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies","authors":"Shuowen An, Yu Song, Bo Jiang","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10201-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10201-z","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148499210","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}

{"title":"Primary School Learning Topics Involving Inhibitory Control: A Scoping Review","authors":"Élisabeth Bélanger, Marine Moyon, Lorie-Marlène Brault Foisy, Steve Masson","doi":"10.1007/s10648-026-10198-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10198-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148429205","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}