{"title":"开放科学时代对教育心理学研究的启示","authors":"Erika A. Patall","doi":"10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Extensive debate of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “open science,” and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, transparent reporting, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research syntheses. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases in the decision making and practices of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses.","PeriodicalId":48361,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychologist","volume":"61 1","pages":"142 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":14.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses\",\"authors\":\"Erika A. Patall\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Extensive debate of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “open science,” and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, transparent reporting, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research syntheses. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases in the decision making and practices of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychologist\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"142 - 160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897009","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses
Abstract Extensive debate of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “open science,” and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, transparent reporting, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research syntheses. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases in the decision making and practices of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses.
期刊介绍:
The Educational Psychologist is a scholarly journal dedicated to exploring the psychology of learning and instruction. Articles in this journal encompass a diverse range of perspectives, from examining psychological mechanisms to exploring social and societal phenomena related to learning and instruction. The journal publishes theoretical and conceptual articles, as well as reviews and meta-analyses, that significantly contribute to theory or advance the methods used to explore educational psychology. Emphasizing innovation and advancing understanding, the journal does not publish articles solely reporting the methods and results of empirical studies; instead, all submissions, including reviews and meta-analyses, must offer clear implications for advancing theory. In addition to regular articles, the journal features special issues that delve into important themes in educational psychology, along with focal articles accompanied by peer commentary.