بررسی تاریخی روانشناسی تربیتی معاصر 1995-2010

The major themes and trends represented by the articles published in Contemporary Educational Psychology (CEP) from 1995 to 2010 are reviewed in this paper. Included are the major topics, theoretical perspectives, participant characteristics, research methods and statistics used, and highly cited papers. The most frequently occurring topic category was individual differences, with motivation being the most common focus of these articles. Academic subjects, particularly reading and math, were also prevalent topics. The two most common theoretical perspectives were cognitive and social cognitive. This article discusses the many contributions of CEP over the past 16 years, including research in the areas of cognitive processing, teaching and learning, motivation, self-efficacy, and learning contexts and the potential for future contributions to theory development, public policy initiatives, and classroom practices. This information could assist authors considering submission of their work and consumers of educational psychology research considering the purchase of journal subscriptions. Researchers and practitioners in the field of educational psychology may also find this information helpful as they choose professional journals for routine review.

In order to produce meaningfully original research, it is essential that researchers know what has been studied, how it was studied, and the directions previous studies might provide. Based on the themes and trends of past research, researchers can determine where and how to make their contribution(s) to their field of study. Yet, they face a paradox: to be both relevant and original at the same time. Realize too little of what is known and risk redundancy or claim something beyond the scope of what is sought or cared for and face irrelevance. Thus, careful deliberation must be undertaken by researchers to push the boundaries of human knowledge. This historical review of Contemporary Educational Psychology (CEP) from 1995 to 2010 highlights recent themes and trends in the journal so that researchers in general, and prospective authors in particular, can appreciate how their niche in the field has evolved, gain a sense of the direction it is taking, and recognize how it might impact the field in the future. The information contained in this article may be of benefit to new and established readers alike. Technological advances and the knowledge explosion that have occurred during this information age create challenges for those attempting to stay abreast of the latest findings in a particular field. A number of journals are available to help researchers and practitioners meet the goal of staying current; however, the limits of time and financial resources often require professionals to make choices as to which journals they will review on a regular basis. The information in this article could assist authors considering submission of their work as well as consumers of educational psychology research considering the purchase of journal subscriptions. Researchers and practitioners in the field of educational psychology may also find this information helpful as they choose professional journals for routine review. Further, frequent readers of CEP may find the historical trends identified in this paper informative, and they may recognize opportunities to contribute to the future direction of the journal and the field of educational psychology. CEP is a peer-reviewed journal first published in 1976 for the purpose of disseminating research and review articles relevant to educational psychology. Articles published in CEP include both classroom and laboratory research related to learning processes, educational methods, and instructional strategies (Alexander, 2010, Edwards, 1976 and Royer, 1996). CEP is a scientifically rigorous journal (Smith et al., 2003) that currently has a journal impact factor of 1.057 and a 5-year impact factor of 2.209 (Elsevier, 2010). Journal impact factor is a measure of the influence of a journal in its particular field, taking into account both the average number of citations per article published in the journal and the recency of the citations. Variations in journal impact factor are expected across disciplines, types of journals, and from year to year; however, the most prestigious journals generally have high impact factors (Garfield, 2005). A search of the educational psychology category in the ISI Web of KnowledgeSM database (Thomson Reuters., 2010) reveals that, of the 44 journals listed in the category, CEP ranks nineteenth in terms of journal impact factor. The highest ranked journal, Child Development, has a current impact factor of 3.631. Among the five educational psychology journals sometimes considered the “Big Five” (Cognition and Instruction, CEP, Journal of Educational Psychology, Educational Psychologist, and Educational Psychology Review) ( Smith et al., 2003), Educational Psychology Review has the highest impact factor, at 3.477, the second highest impact factor of the 44 journals in the educational psychology category. As an influential journal in the field of educational psychology, CEP reflects the overall trends in the profession. A review of the historical trends in the research published in CEP from 1995 to 2010 could provide insight into the importance of these trends and the priorities for future research. As authors and researchers reflect on what has been learned and consider how best to contribute to further knowledge and understanding of learning processes, educational methods, and instructional strategies, the future needs of the profession may become apparent.

In this historical review of CEP, three overlying qualities of its studies were evident. First, there were strong theoretical bases from which the research questions of interest were derived. These theories included those well documented in behaviorist, constructivist, and cognitivist literature. Having research questions follow and then expound upon past literature ensures that educational psychologists conduct research that is both related to and pioneering in the contemporary areas of the field. “Indeed, the future promise of educational psychology will likely depend upon how well this body of work is understood by educational consumers and policy makers and on how easily it can facilitate the ongoing work of educators” (Miller & Reynolds, 2003, p. 611). By ensuring both the relatedness and innovativeness of their studies, prospective authors in CEP can overcome the research paradox of being simultaneously relevant and original. Accordingly, it is important to know what is and is not contained in the literature, and that is where the value of this historical review lies. Second, just as theory drove the formulation of research questions in CEP, the research questions dictated the methodology used in the study. It has been argued “that the greatest obstacles for American researchers are the methodological boundaries that encapsulate ideas” (Murphy, 2003, p. 142). Removing such boundaries that place methodologies before ideas is imperative to advancing the field. The fundamental notion that the research questions drive the design and analysis in a study cannot be overemphasized, especially when looking for solutions to complex social challenges. In CEP, the need to look at and make sense of increasingly complex and dynamic situational phenomena is driving the development of such sophisticated methodological designs as latent variable modeling and phenomenological case studies. Third, investigators gave considerable thought to how findings were obtained, how they were reported, and why they were important to the field. As with all good experiments, empirical studies in CEP maintained adherence to the scientific method. This included isolation of independent variables, reluctance to overgeneralize, and the use of multiple trials. At a time when Reynolds and Miller (2003) called for more sophisticated methodologies that established causality and generalizability despite increasingly complex phenomena and Murphy (2003) called for more replication studies to verify theoretical findings in situational contexts, articles in CEP already pursued these aims. Adherence to the scientific method alone, though, is not sufficient for a comprehensive study; fidelity in the reporting of findings is also required. Not only did CEP emphasize the importance of reporting indices of statistical significance, e.g., effect size, but matters of practical significance were also frequently considered. “Some critics might suggest that researchers are more concerned with showing statistical significance than practical significance… [whereas teachers] change behaviors based on practical consequences rather than statistically significant outcomes” (Murphy, 2003, p. 142). Therefore, it is important for prospective authors in CEP to consider the pragmatic implications of a study’s findings as well as its statistical significance. Research that is grounded in theory, employs adequate and appropriate means of analysis, and holds practical as well as statistical significance will provide the evidence from which future educational reforms can be derived. Because educational reforms based on clear and robust lines of inquiry are attracting the most national research funding, researchers in the field need to keep in mind that, while human behavior and learning are extremely complex and are influenced by countless individual and contextual factors, what constitutes good research remains timeless. Educational psychologists have a rich history of conducting research studies that have furthered our knowledge and understanding of teaching and learning and the multiple variables that influence them. The theoretical contributions made by educational psychologists have provided frameworks from which to investigate essential questions related to education. As the findings from research are disseminated, translated into practical action, and applied in the classroom, educational psychologists can continue to impact individual learners, teachers, schools, and public policy in general. CEP has played – and will continue to play – an important role in this process by providing an outlet for rigorous research that can be utilized by educators, teacher trainers, and researchers seeking to make their own unique and meaningful contributions to the knowledge base