Teacher preparation often incorporates educational psychology because of licensure requirements to demonstrate understanding of learning theories, learning differences, and instructional practices. Yet, teacher educators must continuously reevaluate how they teach and model psychological theories in practice. In this article, I examine how to interleave instructional scaffolding and differentiated instruction (DI) into an elementary/primary science lesson so that constructivist and Vygotskian learning theories are activated. While scaffolding and DI similarly provide contingent support, they have different theoretical emphases in conceptualization and enactment. In response, I provide a review of relevant learning theories and development of scaffolding and DI. I also identify key similarities and differences between scaffolding and DI. Finally, I illustrate how scaffolding and DI can be interleaved in a science lesson to strategically call upon both constructivist and Vygotskian approaches to learning at specific points. I argue that integrating both scaffolding and DI as synergistic methods promotes greater impacts on knowledge construction and advancement of students' zones of proximal development (ZPDs) than using either method alone. In sharing this model for modifying lessons, I contribute to models of learning theory in practice that support the work of teachers and teacher educators.
Classroom-level grading policies are crucial in shaping students' academic motivation, yet educational psychologists for the most part have not studied their direct impact. Instead, most existing work has been conducted primarily by researchers from other disciplines due to these policies' practical relevance for instruction. In the present paper, we review the literature on grading policies and student motivation and propose a framework for future studies in this area. First, we conducted a systematic review of empirical, quantitative studies spanning the last five decades, focusing on the influence of course grade policies on motivation in U.S. high school and postsecondary education. Our search revealed 34 studies that examined how grading policies affect students' motivation. However, we identified significant theoretical and methodological shortcomings in this literature, including how motivation was conceptualized and how studies were designed. In response, we discuss how social-cognitive theories of motivation could help examine grading policies' impacts on student motivation. Finally, we propose a framework for educational psychologists to evaluate these important questions, grounded in these theories. Our aim is to stimulate high-quality research on the implications of specific grading policies that will provide a solid evidence base for teachers and instructors and ultimately enhance students' academic outcomes.
In this article, we tie together two strands of timely education research. Given the prevalence of unreliable information and disinformation flooding the Internet, one strand of research has explored how to teach students to evaluate the credibility of sources of information, such as websites and social media posts. At the same time, another strand of research has taken up concerns about elevating marginalized voices that are often ignored in knowledge production. We argue that both of these issues can be addressed jointly through a consideration of epistemic rights-specifically, the right to know and the right to contribute to knowledge. We apply these rights to the analysis of source evaluation and its instruction. Our analysis of these epistemic rights leads to an expanded, more nuanced conceptualization of three commonly used source credibility evaluation criteria: expertise, benevolence, and social validation. We also analyze how the right to know and the right to contribute knowledge are sometimes in accord and sometimes in tension, which can be resolved only through situated judgments of source credibility. Then, we present an elaboration of the Apt-AIR framework of epistemic thinking to explain how epistemic rights could be taken into account in apt source evaluation.
Embodied pedagogies have been shown to improve learning, even in complex STEM domains. However, the findings are mixed with respect to the exact kind and timing of such pedagogies. In this article we propose that taking a cognitive developmental lens and using findings from the literature on expertise and its development, can help to make sense of these contradictory results. We propose, and offer evidence for, a cognitive developmental theory of embodied learning in which activities that involve direct sensorimotor engagement are effective for learners earlier in their development of expertise, whereas simply observing such sensorimotor activities can be more helpful for more advanced learners. Indeed, experts may be able to self-activate concepts grounded in sensorimotor actions just by imagining such actions. The Perform First Hypothesis offers a working theory for understanding longitudinal expertise development through two distinct embodied pedagogies and advocates for embodied learning research that examines different levels of embodiment, integrates expertise development, and connects theory with practice. Building on this new framework, we propose a research agenda for moving the field of embodied learning forward.
As notions of reading have expanded in terms of what is read (e.g., screens, varied modalities, multiple texts), considerations of what influences reading processes (e.g., digital platforms, culture, emotions) have also expanded. Multiple text comprehension (MTC) researchers have long sought to understand the processes of reading within these broader contexts. However, study designs have largely focused on cognitive processes and text sets separated from larger changes in technology and society. In this paper, we propose an expansion of the focus of MTC research from its historical roots in individual cognition, classroom instruction, and static text sets, taking a broader contextualized view of reading in multiple text situations. We argue for the need to conduct more holistic research concerning how readers construct meaning in multiple text situations, emphasizing (a) the transformational nature of algorithmic technologies on comprehension and meaning-making; (b) the influence of historical/cultural contexts on comprehension; and (c) the role of affect and emotions in readers' construction of meaning.
Adaptively regulating achievement motivation and achievement emotions is critical for students in navigating their academic lives. Traditionally, motivational (MR) and emotional self-regulation (ER) have been studied in isolation from one another, and they both belong to separate research traditions within educational psychology. Given the conceptual as well as functional connections among motivation and emotions, however, it is likely that regulatory processes targeting these constructs are closely interwoven as well. Building on contemporary models in educational psychology and related disciplines, we propose a process-oriented model for conceptualizing and studying MR and ER as interwoven rather than isolated components of students’ self-regulated learning. The model centers on students’ interpretations of their motivational versus emotional regulatory needs as well as their adoption of regulatory goals as pivotal determinants of their subsequent selection, implementation, and monitoring of self-regulatory strategies. In integrating prior theorizing and empirical research from both MR and ER literatures, we identify potential intersections and conflicts among motivational and emotional components of students’ self-regulation in academic settings. Furthermore, we propose key questions for future research generated from our model, and outline avenues and challenges on the way towards integrative approaches to studying MR and ER from methodological, collaborative research, and practical perspectives.
In today's information landscape, students routinely encounter content that is inaccurate, conflicting, or incomplete. These encounters are shaped by a confluence of personalization algorithms, user behaviors, and media dynamics that structure what information students access and how they interpret it. We address this issue by integrating work from epistemic cognition and multiple document comprehension (MDC) that addresses the sociotechnical and epistemic complexities of digital search and information processing. Whereas MDC provides a foundation for examining integration of conflicting documents, these models have not deeply unpacked how students arrive at such documents. Theories of epistemic cognition, conversely, have advanced understanding of the processes involved in navigating "epistemically unfriendly" environments. We propose a framework that captures the cognitive, metacognitive, and justice-oriented demands of digital search, articulated through dimensions of algorithmic awareness, epistemic reflexivity, integrative sourcing and sensemaking, and justice sensitivity. These dimensions highlight how algorithmic filtering, prior beliefs, search behaviors, and epistemic injustice intersect to shape what information students see, how they make sense of it, and which perspectives they trust. Our aim is to contribute to researchers' conceptualization of information processing online and ultimately prompt a critical reevaluation of educational practices in response to evolving technological landscapes.
There is a pressing need to re-evaluate current motivation theories to incorporate race and gender in non-trivial and celebratory ways. In this paper, we address a longstanding gap in the educational psychology literature by introducing a critically, race-gender reimagined motivation framework created specifically for investigating the academic motivation of Black girls. We call this framework Black Girl Embodied Motivation (BGEM). BGEM consists of five core concepts that are grounded and bounded within matrices of domination governed by gendered racism: (1) multiplicative identities, (2) multiplicative consciousnesses, (3) expectancies for the social and material conditions of success, (4) Black Girl Joy, and (5) embodied decisions. In this work, we explore these five components of BGEM, offer a systematic process for critically, race-gender reimagining other educational psychology theories, and discuss the implications of our theory for anti-racist research, practice, and policy in educational psychology.
Following the racial reckoning of summer 2020, the American Psychological Association charged all psychologists to actively engage in antiracist efforts and promote racial justice through research. It is a call for change and an unlearning of discriminatory and marginalizing research practices, and instead, engage in work that humanizes. This charge also aligns with the growing interest and motivation among educational psychologists to engage in race-focused research. However, to conduct race-focused research well necessitates a rethinking of research intentions and processes such that they elevate the foci beyond the mere absence of explicit adverse outcomes, and adopt a humanizing approach to research. In the introduction, we describe our conceptualization of humanizing research, making clear the need for prerequisite work, including reflection and reflexivity about inquiry worldviews, advancing knowledge about the racist roots of methods central to educational psychology, and the development of critical consciousness. To ground these ideas in educational psychology, we describe situated expectancy value theory (SEVT) as one prominent motivation theory well-poised to promote humanizing principles; yet, although the model explicitly includes cultural and social influences on individuals' motivational choices, these factors remain under-theorized. The conclusion provides summaries of the articles in the special issue, highlighting how the content provides explicit ways to reframe constructs, research design, and methods to honor and respect the humanity of People of Color.
In this paper, we examine the pervasive issue of systemic racism within the field of educational psychology and the limitations of traditional research methodologies in addressing racial inequities. Despite the recent reckoning and public apologies from key psychological associations, there has been a broad lack of urgency and slow progress in addressing racial justice issues from the educational psychology discipline. The field remains overshadowed by quantitative methodologies that often claim objectivity and neutrality, (in)advertently perpetuating color-evasive narratives and failing to adequately address the complex layers and institutions of systemic racism in education. To mitigate and counter these shortcomings, we introduce the application of Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) as one possible framework for reimagining research in educational psychology. The current paper explores the five QuantCrit tenets with the interconnected goals of (a) exposing and challenging the racist underpinnings of traditional quantitative methodologies used in educational psychology and (b) empowering educational psychologists to use data to advance social justice and equity.
In 1963, James Baldwin told teachers, "In this country today we are menaced-intolerably menaced-by a lack of vision." Baldwin spoke of America's inability to confront the realities of racism; to recognize Black children, and all people of color, as intelligent, complex, fully human beings; and to work for a more just, humane, and democratic future. In this paper, we build on the APA's (2021) apology to people of color, to argue that many of the tools that are common in educational psychology today are rooted in historically racist systems and ideologies. We offer two broad strategies for research that are instead actively humanizing: radically re-envisioning the goals and aspirations of education research, and fundamentally rethinking the relationships that are necessary to conduct education research. We argue that research must defy deficit-oriented, essentialized views of children and families of color and must treat people of color as capable of charting their own futures and as central actors in identifying problems, questions, goals, and methods for generating knowledge (i.e., research). And researchers must recognize the social world as susceptible to transformation through collective liberatory struggle.
This article discusses the tendency for some researchers to privilege positivistic and post-positivist epistemologies and certain methodologies (e.g., experimental and quantitative methods) over others in the name of scientific rigor. We argue that the uncritical privileging of certain research designs over others contributes to scientific bias and potentially scientific racism. There has been a longstanding epistemological debate about which research methodologies produce rigorous research. Those who argue that only research that examines causal links is considered real science neglect the other stages of the scientific method which also consider description, observation, and prediction, in addition to explanation. The focus on causal questions as the epitome of "real" science dismisses earlier stages of science that must first describe, observe, and predict before it can explain phenomena. We discuss less emphasized forms of validity (e.g., statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity), which are equally important to internal validity in addressing scientific rigor. We also discuss how the tendency to conflate statistical analysis procedures with research design works to dismiss rigorous research not focused on causal questions. This is especially problematic for research that examines underrepresented groups and marginalized populations who are typically also hard-to-reach research populations. Finally, we review previous epistemological debates that privileged certain quantitative methods over other quantitative methods and qualitative approaches and offer recommendations for how to combat scientific racism in psychological science.
This article responds to calls for transdisciplinary collaboration between educational psychology, special education, and Disability Studies in Education (DSE) to better include and support students with disabilities in research and practice. Drawing from embodied experiences and an intersectionality-informed perspective, the author critiques traditional frameworks that perpetuate ableism and reductive understandings of disability. By examining tensions between special education and DSE, the article emphasizes the potential for transformative, post-oppositional collaborations that transcend adversarial discourse. It advocates for systemic understandings of training pathways, professional structures, and theoretical approaches to foster equity and inclusivity. The author explores historical inequities, underscores the value of centering marginalized voices, and calls for thoughtful partnerships to dismantle silos and advance holistic educational practices. This work contributes to expanding the discourse on equity in educational psychology, proposing intersectionality and collaborative methodologies as essential tools for creating inclusive and equitable systems that serve all learners.
Revising one's goal in response to feedback about goal success or failure is a central but poorly understood self-regulatory process. Specifically, a theoretical model that specifies how and how much people revise their goal following goal success or failure is lacking. Therefore, we synthesized empirical studies on goal revision to shed light on the processes and individual differences in goal revision. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and revealed a clear pattern: People raise their goals after success and lower them after failure. Results of a meta-analysis further showed that the discrepancy between goal and performance predicted the strength of upward goal revision after success and downward goal revision after failure (r = .51). Moreover, a narrative summary of previously tested moderators revealed two ways in which moderators affect the direction and strength of goal revision. Moderators affect either the direct link between goal-performance discrepancy and goal revision, or the link between goal-performance discrepancy and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy emerged as a central mediating variable between goal-performance discrepancy and goal revision. Based on these findings, we developed the Triple-A Model (Assessment, Appraisal, Adjustment) of Goal Revision, which allows deriving directional hypotheses about how much people revise their goals after successes and failures.
The amount of time students with learning disabilities (LD) spend in general education classes has steadily increased over the past half century. This article addresses the need to investigate the impact of class-wide instructional approaches for students with and without LD in general education settings. We describe the process of developing and testing two class-wide, inclusive instructional programs that have yielded meaningful impacts on reading outcomes for students with and without disabilities and influenced educational theories. To advance educational psychology research, theory, and practice, we also present recommendations for conducting rigorous intervention research that can improve understanding of the best ways to support the reading development of students with LD in inclusive settings.
Teachers are increasingly called to enact student-centered instructional approaches that promote a socially and intellectually ambitious vision of classroom teaching. Such approaches require adaptive expertise to effectively elicit and respond to students' developing thinking amidst a constantly evolving and multifaceted classroom environment. However, the field's understanding of the cognitive learning mechanisms that support developing adaptive teaching expertise and how to cultivate them in professional learning contexts is still underdeveloped. In this article, we integrate key cognitive and situated learning perspectives, with a particular focus on characterizing in detail the kinds of learning interactions that support teachers' adaptive problem solving and knowledge transfer. Our primary contribution is to offer a revised theory of frames and framing for developing adaptive teaching expertise, situated in the context of expert-guided teacher reflection. Specifically, we describe key components of a teaching frame (teaching schema and teaching principle) and argue that two framing dimensions (strategic and expansive) are especially consequential for facilitating learning interactions that support developing adaptive teaching expertise. Our core argument is that frames and framing are central for understanding teacher learning and cognition, and that extending this literature into teacher learning research holds promise for advancing more robust teacher professional development.
In this commentary, I discuss methodological issues relevant to the programs of research outlined in the papers included in this special issue on including students with disabilities in educational psychology theory and research. First, I discuss how qualitative research that includes students with disabilities can offer critical insights into learners and the learning context, and advance theory development relevant to all students. Next, I extend calls made in this special issue on using quantitative approaches to understanding learner variation in relation to intervention effectiveness, and to test logic models that relate active ingredients of interventions to learner outcomes. Finally, I close with reflections on research quality, and how advancing these programs of research will require an understanding of research design limitations.
Researchers with interest in educational issues have worked to improve their impact on practice and policy by increasing the inclusiveness of their approaches to research. For example, the field of educational psychology has aimed to better address issues of sex, gender, and race and ethnicity with an eye toward improving theory, teaching, learning, and motivation in diverse educational contexts. However, students with disabilities (SWD) have historically been underrepresented in these conversations. Failing to consider this population does a disservice to SWD and limits the impact and relevance of educational psychology theory. Thus, we present the concept of Transdisciplinary Inclusivity (TI) to describe how educational psychologists can be inclusive of SWD in research. TI includes five components: (1) inquiry worldview flexibility, (2) multiple methodologies, (3) situated theory, (4) agentic research, and (5) transformative equity centered practice. We explain how TI can inform theories and conceptual frameworks commonly used across the field, as well as outlining new paths for educational psychologists to continue this important work. We conclude with a brief description of the articles included in this special issue which are representative of components of TI.
