Educational Psychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Meta-analysis of Interventions for Monitoring Accuracy in Problem Solving","authors":"Noortje Janssen, Ard W. Lazonder","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate monitoring of performance in problem-solving tasks is an important prerequisite for students’ future academic success. A wide variety of interventions aiming to enhance students’ monitoring accuracy have been developed, but their effectiveness is not apparent from the individual studies in which they have been examined. This meta-analysis classified these interventions in terms of how they target students’ monitoring and investigated their relative effectiveness to improve monitoring accuracy in problem-solving tasks. Findings across the 35 included studies indicated that all interventions combined have a small positive effect on students’ monitoring accuracy (<i>g</i> = 0.25). Intervention type moderated the findings. Interventions on the whole task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standards improved monitoring accuracy. On the other hand, interventions targeting the timing of metacognitive judgment negatively impacted monitoring accuracy and significantly differed from all other interventions. Exploratory moderator analyses of study features indicated that secondary school students benefited least from the interventions compared to primary school students and adults, laboratory studies showed larger effects than classroom studies, and interventions were more effective for retrospective confidence judgments than for judgments of learning. For educational practice, interventions targeting the whole task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standards are recommended, while reconsideration and possibly discontinuation of timing interventions is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142021853","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 Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Executive Functions—a Systematic Review","authors":"Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, Marius Bregulla","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Self-regulated learning (SRL) and executive functions (EF) are broad concepts stemming from different research areas. They have been defined and modeled in various ways and are repeatedly related to each other in the literature, but so far, no systematic analyses of these relations have been published. Therefore, a systematic analysis of their relationships described in the literature was conducted. Nineteen studies were synthesized concerning different categories (age groups, measurement methods, role of metacognition, relation to achievement, and longitudinal/intervention studies). In general, primarily low to moderate correlational relationships between SRL and EF were reported, with no detectable pattern depending on the age group. Measurement methods used to capture SRL and EF seem to influence the size of the correlations, with indirect measures correlating higher than direct/indirect measures. In addition, there is evidence that metacognition mediates the relationship between EF and SRL. In general, the notion that EF predicts SRL but not vice versa is supported. Following the systematic review, the results are critically discussed in the light of non-generalizable samples, measurement methods, and results interpretation issues. Suggestions for theory building and promising future research are given.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142022241","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":"Identifying the Most Cited Articles and Authors in Educational Psychology Journals from 1988 to 2023","authors":"Waseem Hassan, Amedee Marchand Martella, Daniel H. Robinson","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09938-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09938-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422–430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg's study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013900","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 Associations Between Parenting Self-Efficacy and Parents’ Contributions to the Home-School Partnership Among Parents of Primary School Students: a Multilevel Meta-analysis","authors":"Tianyi Ma, Cassandra L. Tellegen, Julie Hodges, Matthew R. Sanders","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09937-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09937-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p>High-quality partnerships between families and schools can bring enormous benefits to the development, learning, and wellbeing of children. Decades of research has identified parenting self-efficacy as a key factor influencing parents’ contributions toward effective home-school partnerships. However, the strength of this association has varied significantly across studies with the aggregated strength remaining unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the associations between parenting self-efficacy and various aspects of parents’ contribution to the home-school partnership, namely home-based involvement, school-based involvement, home-school communication and relationships, as well as parental expectations and aspirations among parents of primary school students. Moderator effects were also examined. Through systematically searching six databases and screening papers, we included 50 independent studies involving 185 effect sizes (<i>N</i> = 20,043 children). Results showed a small to medium correlation between parenting self-efficacy and the multidimensional construct of home-school partnership outcomes (<i>r</i> = .189). The associations were stronger for education-focused parenting self-efficacy (<i>r</i> = .183) than general parenting self-efficacy (<i>r</i> = .114) and were stronger still for home-based participation (<i>r</i> = .248) and parental expectations and aspirations (<i>r</i> = .248) than school-based participation (<i>r</i> = .124) and parent-teacher communication/relationship (<i>r</i> = .090). We detected limited moderating effects of child gender, parent gender, ethnicity, sample type (general or targeted), and socio-economic status and publication bias. Overall, this meta-analysis provides evidence to support the positive relationship between parenting self-efficacy and parents’ contributions to the strength of the home-school partnership. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.\u0000</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013901","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":"Study Demands–Resources Theory: Understanding Student Well-Being in Higher Education","authors":"Arnold B. Bakker, Karina Mostert","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09940-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09940-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article reviews the literature on student well-being (burnout and engagement) and their relationships with study demands and resources, student behaviors (proactive and self-undermining study behaviors), and student outcomes in higher education. Building on research that used Job Demands–Resources and Study Demands–Resources models to investigate student well-being, we develop the Study Demands–Resources (SD–R) theory to delineate the various processes, mechanisms, and behaviors involved in student burnout and engagement. Study demands and resources have unique and combined effects on higher education students’ well-being. In addition, students can influence their own well-being and study-related outcomes by either proactively optimizing their study demands and resources or displaying self-undermining behaviors that can adversely affect their study environment. We discuss several avenues for future research, including (a) rigorous tests of SD–R propositions; (b) trait versus state effects in SD–R theory; (c) the impact of the higher education climate and lecturer influence; and (d) an expanded SD–R theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142002653","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 AIR and Apt-AIR Frameworks of Epistemic Performance and Growth: Reflections on Educational Theory Development","authors":"Sarit Barzilai, Clark A. Chinn","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09927-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09927-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The nurturing of learners’ ways of knowing is vital for supporting their intellectual growth and their participation in democratic knowledge societies. This paper traces the development of two interrelated theoretical frameworks that describe the nature of learners’ epistemic thinking and performance and how education can support epistemic growth: the AIR and Apt-AIR frameworks. After briefly reviewing these frameworks, we discuss seven reflections on educational theory development that stem from our experiences working on the frameworks. First, we describe how our frameworks were motivated by the goal of addressing meaningful educational challenges. Subsequently, we explain why and how we infused philosophical insights into our frameworks, and we also discuss the steps we took to increase the coherence of the frameworks with ideas from other educational psychology theories. Next, we reflect on the important role of the design of instruction and learning environments in testing and elaborating the frameworks. Equally important, we describe how our frameworks have been supported by empirical evidence and have provided an organizing structure for understanding epistemic performance exhibited in studies across diverse contexts. Finally, we discuss how the development of the frameworks has been spurred by dialogue within the research community and by the need to address emerging and pressing real-world challenges. To conclude, we highlight several important directions for future research. A common thread running through our work is the commitment to creating robust and dynamic theoretical frameworks that support the growth of learners’ epistemic performance in diverse educational contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141998710","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":"Navigating Spatial Ability for Mathematics Education: a Review and Roadmap","authors":"Kelsey E. Schenck, Mitchell J. Nathan","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09935-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09935-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Spatial skills can predict mathematics performance, with many researchers investigating how and why these skills are related. However, a literature review on spatial ability revealed a multiplicity of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks that lack convergence, presenting a confusing terrain for researchers to navigate. We expose two central challenges: (1) many of the ways spatial ability is defined and subdivided are often not based in well-evidenced theoretical and analytical frameworks, and (2) the sheer variety of spatial assessments. These challenges impede progress in designing spatial skills interventions for improving mathematics thinking based on causal principles, selecting appropriate metrics for documenting change, and analyzing and interpreting student outcome data. We offer solutions by providing a practical guide for navigating and selecting among the various major spatial taxonomies and instruments used in mathematics education research. We also identify current limitations of spatial ability research and suggest future research directions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141994393","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":"Motivating the Learning Process: Integrating Self-Determination Theory Into a Dynamical Systems Framework","authors":"Peter Claudius Osei, David F. Bjorklund","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09934-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09934-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The complexity of modern societies necessitates that children learn highly abstract material, such as mathematics, which often conflicts with behavioral goals that are innately motivating. For instance, children’s educational success is generally evaluated based on their individual achievements, while humans are motivated to learn by engaging in socially relevant behaviors. Additionally, science-related content typically requires higher-level abstract thinking to comprehend related concepts and perform the underlying cognitive processes, whereas humans evolved primarily to monitor and manipulate the physical environment by moving within it to execute foraging and hunting behaviors. Moreover, school systems inherently prescribe top-down strategies in which teachers transfer knowledge by providing instructions to guide students' knowledge acquisition. By contrast, humans evolved to learn through bottom-up processes motivated by the learner's internal drive to explore their physical and social environment. As a consequence, skeletal cognitive competencies that evolved throughout human history create a mismatch between why children are motivated to learn and how they are expected to learn. This review adopts an evolutionary perspective to examine how the interplay between students’ internal physiological and psychological adaptations and external instructional methods of modern educational systems impacts motivation and learning. Ultimately, the review offers suggestions on how to motivate the learning process by integrating self-determination theory principles into a dynamical systems framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141992003","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 Personalized Learning by Interest Effect on Interest, Cognitive Load, Retention, and Transfer: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Lijia Lin, Xin Lin, Xiaofang Zhang, Paul Ginns","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09933-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09933-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p>None of the existing reviews or meta-analyses have focused on personalized learning that accommodates learners’ interests. To address this issue, we conducted this meta-analysis to examine the effects of personalized learning by interest on self-reports of interest and cognitive load, retention, and transfer, as well as potential moderators of these effects. Based on 26 interest effect sizes (<i>n</i> = 5,335), 8 cognitive load effect sizes (<i>n</i> = 1,228), 46 retention effect sizes (<i>n</i> = 5,991), and 6 transfer effect sizes (<i>n</i> = 375) from 34 publications, our analysis revealed that a) personalized learning by interest had a medium-to-large effect on interest (<i>g</i> = 0.55), a medium-to-large effect on cognitive load (<i>g</i> = 0.54), a medium effect on retention (<i>g</i> = 0.48), and a medium effect on transfer (<i>g</i> = 0.36); b) the effect on interest was moderated by the diagnostic approach, grain size, and the domain, c) the effect on retention varied across learners from different continents, and d) the effect on retention was larger for quasi-experimental studies than experimental studies. Results are discussed in terms of their implications, limitations, and potential to inform future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141986512","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":"A Systematic Review of Graduate Students’ Research Motivation: Themes, Theories, and Methodologies","authors":"Jiying Han, Yahui Wang","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09924-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09924-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is a systematic review of empirical studies on graduate students’ research motivation, a key factor for improving their research performance. A total of 57 articles and conference papers between 1993 and 2023 were identified through the thorough search process and quality assessment, and their research categories and themes, theories, and methodologies were synthesized. Based on this review, a Graduate Students’ Research Motivation Model (GSRMM) was constructed, highlighting three main categories: antecedents, consequences, and mediating roles of graduate students’ research motivation. The results of the study showed that manipulable antecedents have been extensively explored, but immutable antecedents, consequences, and the mediating roles of research motivation remain underexplored. Self-efficacy theory emerged as the dominant framework in the existing studies. Quantitative research design by means of self-report questionnaires dominated the current studies, which warrants a move towards alternative research measurements. This comprehensive review provides a deeper understanding of graduate students’ research motivation and also suggests new avenues for further exploration in this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141980854","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}