Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Practice Initiatives

625

beyond dichotomous questions that pit one modality over an-

other. As Lehrer and Lesh (this volume) note, the teaching en-

vironments within which technology is embedded also are

critical to facilitating greater understanding of mathematics—

particularly concepts found in geometry. These researchers re-

view studies that demonstrate advantages of technology that

heighten learning when paired with concomitant instruction,

dialogue, and joint explanation. We agree with Goldman-

Segall and Maxwell, who suggest that the most profitable work

of the future will be to determine what types of learning envi-

ronments—media or otherwise—promote processes and rep-

resentations that are better for particular knowledge and tasks,

across different contexts, and with different types of learners.

Other questions regarding how best to integrate technol-

ogy into the curriculum relate to concerns regarding access

and inequity. McCombs (this volume) and others point out

that such issues arise when certain members of the population

are systematically denied equal access because of vast differ-

ences in monetary or personnel resources. Technology inte-

gration also is difficult when innovation and reforms misalign

with current practice and capability or accountability poli-

cies; this might occur if content standards or technology com-

petencies work against collaborative efforts and learning.

Finally, the availability of qualified teachers and personnel

who are willing and able to readily adapt new technological

advances can be problematic. Teachers need much support

and training before technology is applied in the ways envi-

sioned by key researchers in the field.

Curriculum Development

Many of the research findings in educational psychology in

the latter part of the twentieth century have provided a strong

theoretical basis for how critical constructs can be fostered in

educational settings. Curriculum developers have begun to

take notice of many of these findings. Knowledge of key

content domain strategies and skills has stimulated curricu-

lum development across many of the domains reviewed here. 

Notable developments in reading and writing research and

curriculum have been made (see Gaffney & Anderson, 2000;

chapter by Pressley in this volume). Balanced literacy prac-

tices have been developed that mimic processes and self-

questions characteristically found in expert readers and

writers (Pressley, 1998); in writing curriculum, this has

meant teaching students directly how to plan, draft, and re-

vise materials (Harris & Graham, 1996). Curriculum for

early education has been developed to foster the contempo-

rary use of art, play, and music. Childhood technology has

moved beyond the original constructivist LOGO environ-

ments pioneered by Seymour Papert (1980); children and

adults now use media that helps them learn to explore, ex-

press, and participate in knowledge construction and explo-

ration while learning about advanced mathematical concepts

such as fractions (see chapters by Goldman-Segall &

Maxwell and by Lehrer & Lesh in this volume). Findings re-

garding the individual profiles and stability of giftedness sug-

gest the need to find optimal curricular matches for these

students earlier than once thought. Olszewski-Kubilius (this

volume) points to the importance of early instruction that

captures higher-level conceptual ability to increase motiva-

tion and lower resistance. She points to work that suggests

when such approaches are introduced to older gifted students,

they become frustrated with the new demands and subse-

quently will not be motivated for complex learning.

Unfortunately, many published curriculum materials have

not adequately incorporated methods to foster motivation,

self-regulation, or cooperative learning. Pintrich (this vol-

ume) and others have called for future work that merges key

learning and motivational constructs into curriculum de-

signed for the content area domains of writing, science, and

mathematics. The challenge is how to best incorporate our

broad knowledge base about motivation and relational con-

structs into classroom curriculum that not only enhances

learning but also leads to high levels of engagement and per-

sistence in the face of failure. Finally, we anticipate that in the

future there will be even more curriculum transformation re-

search on how to encourage participation of women and mi-

norities and on how to overcome sexual stereotypes and

harassment (see chapter by Koch in this volume). Educa-

tional psychologists will continue to design and evaluate

practices and attitudinal changes that will help close the glar-

ing gender gaps in education captured in several national re-

ports (AAUW; American Association of University Women

Educational Foundation, 1998).

Cautions on Translations to Practice 

Much of the work represented in the chapters in this book

has had a significant impact on educational practice, innova-

tion, and reform. Research in the field of educational psy-

chology has contributed to moving educational reform to the

forefront of political discussions (e.g., National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; National Reading Panel,

2000). Educational psychologists have the potential to cap-

ture the attention both of the public and of policy makers (see

chapter by McCombs in this volume). Nevertheless, there is

a need to be cautious about how work within the field is

translated to practice.

626

Future Perspectives in Educational Psychology

There is a great tendency for the public to jump on quick,

unidimensional solutions when bending to political pressures

that overlook important counterevidence or unintended out-

comes. When educational advances are touted for their

positive affects on learning and development, rarely are

important concomitant impacts recognized. For example,

Goelman et al. (this volume) point out that much of what is

marketed today as educational programming for young chil-

dren is more in line developmentally with the preferences

and skill levels of older students. Another example is the cur-

rent tendency to succumb to the idea that educational soft-

ware or web-based resources can provide an efficient

modality for all learning woes. Goldman-Segall and

Maxwell (this volume) note that misinformation as well as

good information can be found on the Internet and that edu-

cators should remember that gathering information online is

not the same as learning.

Too often, initial promising findings are translated into

easy fixes and educational answers by mandates of packaged

curriculum, courseware, and programs for all learners. Such

one-size-fits-all thinking overlooks the diversity that exists

in today’s learners and learning contexts (see chapter by

McCombs in this volume). Mandated solutions to students’

learning needs often have not been scrutinized with the same

rigor called for to establish credible evidence by educational

researchers and may not be easily transferable across settings

(Levin & O’Donnell, 1999). Current school reform move-

ments and mandates are rarely evaluated for how they may

change an array of outcomes, including impacts on learning

as well as on motivation and interpersonal processes between

teachers and students. For example, teaching driven by per-

formance testing and learning-based outcomes should be

evaluated for its impact on collaborative efforts that promote

relationships in school settings (see chapters by McCombs

and by Pianta et al. in this volume).

Another issue is that many reforms have not attended to

all segments of the population. Appropriate early education

for young gifted children or young children experiencing sig-

nificant learning or behavioral problems are just a few of the

neglected groups of students with exceptional needs (see

chapters by Olszewski-Kubilius, by Siegel, and by Walker &

Gresham in this volume). A number of factors influence how

children with exceptional needs are educated, including

ideological beliefs, current economic and demographic

trends, issues of educational classification, and ideas about

when appropriate programming should begin (also see chap-

ter by Reschly in this volume). Notions about the malleabil-

ity of abilities and the stability of behaviors can influence

acceptability notions about how and when to offer services.

Moreover, when early and remedial intervention services

are offered, many educators are badly equipped to meet the

individual needs of exceptional students (see chapters by

Reschly, by Siegel, by Walker & Gresham, and by Whitcomb

in this volume).

The increasing globalization of our society will raise im-

portant policy and research issues over the next century.

Social and cultural contexts have been incorporated by edu-

cational psychologists into the study of a broad range of

processes and contexts contributing to learning and develop-

ment (see chapter by John-Steiner & Mahn in this volume).

Reforms arising from this work must be careful not to allow

sociocultural differences to connote deficiencies within cer-

tain groups. For example, remedial home-based programs to

strengthen early literacy skills can be developed and deliv-

ered in such a way as to imply deprived notions of parenting

practices. Alternatively, these programs can be developed

from the mindset that different literacy purposes are reflected

in culturally diverse families; some such purposes are less

suited for successful transitions into school. The later ap-

proach would demonstrate a greater understanding of impor-

tant contextual factors contributing to school deficiencies in

culturally different students (see chapter by Goelman et al. in

this volume). Reforms to meet the needs of culturally diverse

students must be designed to match what we know about gen-

eral learning, motivation, and development and the complex

array of contextual factors that can influence such processes

(see chapters by John-Steiner & Mahn and by McCombs in

this volume).

Finally, educational psychologists will need to fight re-

form pressures and politics that reduce complex notions into

easily defined yet constrained concepts that have not been

comprehensively appraised for their positive and negative ef-

fects. In the future, more work may be needed to further eval-

uate less psychometrically strong theories that are likely to

influence key educational policies (see chapter by Levin et al.

in this volume; Levin & O’Donnell, 1999). Educational psy-

chologists will be at the forefront, countering the demands

for quick answers by advocating models and methods that

capture the diversity and complexity necessary to understand

human learning and development. Educational psychologists

will lead efforts cautioning against looking for any single

magic bullet to solve all learning and instruction problems

(see chapter by Pintrich in this volume). As McCombs (this

volume) suggests, educational psychologists are likely to be

instrumental in the identification of a continuum of potential

solutions for our pressing educational challenges—solutions

that take into account both individual capacities and social

and cultural environments.

Educational Psychology’s Future: Conclusions

627

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY’S 

FUTURE: CONCLUSIONS

Since 1848, almost every educational policy statement pro-

posed for public education has included explicit objectives

for the development of intellectual, scholastic, and cognitive

competencies as well as character development, moral val-

ues, conformity, and cooperation as social competencies for

producing model citizens (see chapter by McCombs in this

volume and Wentzel, 1998). Educational psychology re-

searchers have contributed theory and practice to further our

knowledge in each of these pursuits.

Over the next two decades, educational psychology re-

searchers are likely to integrate comprehensive models of

learning and cognition with affective, motivational, social,

and biological influences. Moreover, ecological and sociocul-

tural frameworks will increasingly influence our understand-

ing of individual cognitive and social pursuits, behavioral

and academic competence, and social-interpersonal relation-

ships. The next generation of theorists will be more interested

in describing interactive relationships that are multidirec-

tional and situated in broad ecological frameworks. Indeed,

in the future complex systems, frameworks will be used to

build more comprehensive models for understanding individ-

ual cognitive and social pursuits, behavioral and academic

competence, and social-interpersonal relationships. Theoreti-

cal ties will be strengthened by linking the literature on cog-

nition, self-regulation, and learning to relational, motivation,

and classroom processes. Wentzel (this volume) concurs

when she suggests that educational researchers and policy

makers will benefit from continued work on the dynamic,

multilevel interactions that take place in schools in order to

further our understanding of the complex phenomena of

classroom adjustment and achievement.

At times it is clear that various theoretical perspectives

within a domain widely differ in the location of key criterion

variables. These differences in theory and constructs have led

our authors to call for more collaborative efforts in the future.

The critical question is how willing and successful educa-

tional psychology researchers will be in finding fruitful con-

nections for consolidating dominant theories in the hopes of

identifying more comprehensive theoretical models in the fu-

ture. Such thinking is sure to advance the field so that educa-

tional practice can benefit more fully from the contributions

of educational research across various fields and orientations.

Such collaboration will go far in making our knowledge base

more visible and accessible to educators and policy makers.

(see Lambert & McCombs, 1998, and chapter by McCombs

in this volume for a discussion of a collaborative Task Force

on Psychology in Education sponsored by the APA that re-

sulted in the publication of 14 Learner Centered Practice

Principles).

It is important to note that a push for greater synthesis also

has its drawbacks—especially if it results in a de-emphasis

on work that seeks to clarify and isolate discrete constructs

and processes. Integrative models across increasingly broad

domains might contribute to a less distinctive knowledge

base associated with the field of educational psychology. In

fact, historically, rigorous empirical investigations of inde-

pendent concepts and processes have helped distinguish

many areas of research within educational psychology. Thus,

a significant challenge for the next generation of researchers

is how to encourage the pursuit of critical and enduring con-

structs while expanding into new areas of inquiry with the

goal of establishing interrelationships across a wide corpus of

research. Theoretical integration notwithstanding, contro-

versy and debates across and within many domains will

contribute to vigorous refinements and expansions of inde-

pendent as well as integrated constructs that will continue to

improve our understanding of important influences on learn-

ing and schooling.

In 1992, Calfee reflected on the field of educational psy-

chology and noted that what was needed in the coming century

was a refinement of more credible and convincing educational

research. Levin and O’Donnell (1999) have recently reframed

this suggestion as a call for future efforts to enhance the cred-

ibility of educational psychology as a discipline, which will in

turn enhance the quality and societal value of educational re-

search (also see chapter by Levin et al. in this volume). Trust-

worthy and credible research to assess the relative impact of

educational and psychological treatments or interventions is

of critical importance for policy makers. Levin, O’Donnell,

and Kratochwill (this volume) call for future educational re-

forms based on clearly delineated standards of credible evi-

dence. Such calls are receiving wide recognition in national

research funding. In the future, innovative continuums that

draw both from contextually based inquiry and from robust,

rigorous large-scale implementation studies will be a top pri-

ority for educational researchers. Although frustrations have

been voiced about the widely divergent quality and rigor asso-

ciated with the past era of educational research (Sroufe, 1997),

it is clear that educational psychology more than any other

field offers research validated frameworks to guide systematic

reform efforts in education (see chapter by McCombs in this

volume). The many research successes in the areas of study

reviewed here should go far in stimulating a great deal of

additional research in the twenty-first century. Such work will

permit progress not only by augmenting our understanding of

628

Future Perspectives in Educational Psychology

academic success, but also by providing more definitive re-

search to increase our understanding about how to intervene

and prevent schooling difficulties and failures.

We concur with the assertion forwarded by the majority of

the authors here—that educational psychologists have an im-

portant opportunity to play a significant role in shaping K–20

education in the twenty-first century. Work within the field of

educational psychology is poised to address the challenges

posed by the vast achievement differences across students

from diverse backgrounds and the pressing expectations of

promoting higher levels of achievement for all students. As

the researcher-contributors in this volume point out, an im-

portant reciprocal relationship exists between psychology

and education that is best reflected in the contributions of ed-

ucational psychologists historically and is even more visibly

represented in the last two decades. We are in an exciting era

of transformation and change. We anticipate that research in

educational psychology will continue to provide the practi-

cal, theoretical, and intellectual underpinnings that will en-

able students to achieve their fullest potential.

Summary

Our perspectives for the future as presented in this volume

are in large part based on recent past efforts in educational

psychology, emerging trends identified by the contributors to

this volume, and the integration of advances across domains

covered in this volume. It sometimes occurs that the most in-

teresting predictions for things to come are made by histori-

ans (e.g., Wells) who are able to synthesize cyclical historical

trends with current status to arrive at best guesses for the

future. We did not use historical antecedents to derive our fu-

ture perspectives and are less inclined to view our sugges-

tions for the future as predictions as much as fruitful avenues

and venues for future research, practice, and policy. We have

attempted to extrapolate meaningful trends in educational

psychology to elucidate short- and long-term goals—some of

which have been specific and others of which have been

broadly defined. Above all, we view the field of educational

psychology as an exciting area of psychological research that

has made and will continue to make important contributions

to the understanding and promotion of human learning, cog-

nition, and the schooling process.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing,

and literacy. In I. Sigel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of

child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (pp. 275–

355). New York: Wiley.

American Association of University Women Educational Founda-

tion (1998). Gender gaps executive summary. Washington, DC:

Association of University Woman Educational Foundation. 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of be-

havioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Boekaerts, P. R., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Hand-

book of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C.

Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psy-

chology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A

quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruc-

tion with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 88, 18–37.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C.

Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.

Calfee, R. C. (1992). Refining educational psychology: The case of

the missing links. Educational Psychologist, 27, 163–175.

Calfee, R. C., & Berliner, D. C. (1996). Introduction to a dynamic

and relevant educational psychology. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 1–11). New

York: Macmillan. 

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional

methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York:

Irvington.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the

learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learn-

ing to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s

handbook (pp. 63–91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, A., Konold, C., & Coulter, B. (2000). Network science, a

decade later: The internet and classroom learning. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum. 

Florio-Ruane, S., & McVee, M. (2000). Ethnographic approaches to

literacy research. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson,

& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3,

pp. 153–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M. J., McCormick, K., &

Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and

social process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (2000). Trends in reading research

in the United States: Changing intellectual currents over three