Greene2022 Article WhatCanEducationalPsychologyLe

Educational Psychology Review
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09682-5
REVIEW ARTICLE
What Can Educational Psychology Learn From,

and Contribute to, Theory Development Scholarship?
Jeffrey A. Greene1
Accepted: 5 May 2022

© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
One of the field of psychology’s stated goals is to produce scholarship with find-
ings that benefit the world. Over the last 10 years, psychology scholarship and its
presumed societal benefits have been called into question due to the field’s history
of questionable research practices, racism, and epistemic oppression. Calls for meth-
odological, ethical, and practical reforms are essential to building a psychological
science that is just, effective, reliable, and beneficial. Recently, these calls have been
complemented by a push to reform how theory is developed and used in psychology.
There is great need for better understanding and implementation of theory develop-
ment, both in the field of psychology broadly as well as in its subdisciplines, includ-
ing educational psychology. At the same time, educational psychologists have much
to contribute to the tripartite calls for methodological, ethical, and theory reforms.
In this paper, I explore theory development in psychology by discussing the impor-
tance of developing both the descriptive and explanatory aspects of theory as well
as the need to refine how theory is evaluated and integrated. Then, I review how
innovations and practices in educational psychology can inform the broader the-
ory reform movement in psychology writ large. Finally, I identify important future
directions for further advancing theory reform in psychology, including addressing
ableism in the field, increasing the field’s hospitability for theory revision, further-
ing theory development transparency, and more deeply integrating theory develop-
ment into preparation programs.
Keywords Theory · Theory development · Open science · Research methods
The American Psychological Association’s (APA) ability to achieve its mission “to
promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science
and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives” (APA, 2022, Mission section)
has been called into question by recent critiques born from long-standing issues.
* Jeffrey A. Greene
jagreene@email.unc.edu
1
School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
The first set of critiques derived from psychology’s “replication crisis” (e.g., Open
Science Collaboration, 2015), which has highlighted the field’s history of questiona-
ble research practices (Flake & Fried, 2020) via analyses revealing cracks in the evi-
dential foundation of some of the field’s most treasured findings (e.g., the ego-deple-
tion effect; Hagger et al., 2016). The second set of critiques involve psychology’s
past and continued contributions to systemic inequalities, racism, racial discrimina-
tion, and epistemic oppression that have maintained white supremacy and created
“inherent flaws in research” (Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 1098). These methodologi-
cal and racist malpractices undermine psychologists’ aspirations to address societal
challenges such as misinformation in a post-truth world (Barzilai & Chinn, 2020),
vaccine acceptance (Murphy et al., 2021), conceptions of climate change (Thacker
et al., 2020), and educational equity and excellence (Jagers et al., 2019). Reform
movements have included calls for a more open science with greater methodologi-
cal rigor (Fleming et al., 2021; Gehlbach & Robinson, 2021; Munafò et al., 2017)
and a commitment to anti-racist and inclusive scholarship and practices (APA, 2021;
Buchanan et al., 2021; Zusho & Kumar, 2018). Recently, these critically important
calls have been echoed by a somewhat less prominent, but nonetheless complemen-
tary, call for reform in the ways psychologists engage in theory development (Eronen
& Bringmann, 2021; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019; Plaut, 2010; Wentzel, 2021).
Theories are descriptions of how, and for some types of theory why, phenomena
occur in the world (Borsboom et al., 2021). Theory, and how it is developed, directly
relate to psychology’s methodological and anti-racist goals because theory guides
who and what psychologists study, the questions psychologists ask, how psycholo-
gists interpret findings, and what implications psychologists suggest based on those
findings (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021; Szollsi & Donkin, 2021). Yet, theory develop-
ment has been relatively underscrutinized compared to the field’s focus on methods
(Fielder, 2017; Wentzel, 2021). Scholars who have looked deeply at psychology’s
use of theory have lamented the paucity of clear descriptions of theory development
(Eronen & Bringmann, 2021), the scarcity of clear connections between theory
and the empirical work published in psychology journals, (McPhetres et al., 2021),
the difficulty in evaluating the adequacy of theories (Gervais, 2021), the often-
unchecked proliferation of multiple seemingly similar theories about the same phe-
nomena (Eronen & Romeihn, 2020; Mischel, 2008), and the inequitable prominence
of WEIRD (i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich
et al., 2010) and able-ist (Emery & Anderman, 2020) perspectives in psychology
scholarship. Quite simply, more just, effective, reliable, and beneficial psychology
scholarship and practice requires reform focused not just on methods and anti-racist
practices, but also on theory development and use.
The need for tripartite reform (i.e., methods, anti-racism, theory development) in
psychology extends to its many subdisciplines (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021), with
educational psychology being no exception (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014; Makel
et al., 2021; Wentzel, 2021). There is emerging evidence of questionable research
practices in education and educational psychology (Gehlbach & Robinson, 2021)
as well as continued evidence the field must reckon with past failures to address
epistemic injustice (Kidd et al., 2017) based on race (Lopez, 2022; Usher, 2018) and
ability (Emery & Anderman, 2020), among other factors. Calls for a greater focus
13
on theory development in educational psychology have been less prominent but

nonetheless present. For example, after publishing a critique of theory development
in psychology writ large, Gigerenzer (2010) reported receiving this response from
a professor: “No field within psychology suffers more from the theoretical malaise
than mine, educational psychology” (p. 734). More recently, Wentzel (2021) argued
“an important challenge for research reform is to achieve greater parsimony across
theoretical frameworks” (p. 166) and that efforts at methodological reform in edu-
cational psychology “also will require changes in how we train the next generation
of researchers to incorporate theory into sampling, measurement, design, and data
analysis decisions” (p. 169).
Educational psychologists have indeed struggled to achieve parsimony among an
ever-increasing number of theories of learning and related phenomena. For example,
attempts to integrate the many prevailing theories of learning (e.g., Alexander et al.,
2009) have been met with significant skepticism (e.g., Graesser, 2009; Säljö, 2009)
and sadly little traction. There have been similar attempts to achieve parsimony
among theories of motivation (Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003), self-
regulated learning (Winne, 1995), and literacy (Anderson et al., 1985). Each attempt
has been earnest, yet each has been followed by the publication of yet another
attempt at synthesis years later (Frankel et al., 2017; Hattie et al., 2020; Linnen-
brink-Garcia et al., 2016; Panadero, 2017), suggesting little progress toward integra-
tion or parsimony. Without effective integration, a field can experience unchecked
and likely unsustainable growth in the number of theories, amusingly characterized
by Mischel (2008): “psychologists treat other peoples’ theories like toothbrushes
– no self-respecting person wants to use anyone else’s” (n.d.). Excessive growth in
the number of theories can hinder educational psychology’s ability to generate reli-
able findings with practical implications, jeopardizing its reputation with practition-
ers, policy-makers, and the public (Gehlbach & Robinson, 2021; Wentzel, 2021;
Willingham, 2017).
I argue that educational psychology would benefit from increased focus on the
scholarship of theory development (e.g., Borsboom et al., 2021; Eronen & Bring-
mann, 2021), which would bolster the subdiscipline’s efforts to productively inte-
grate multiple theories in ways that afford clearer and better-supported implications
for practitioners, policy-makers, and the public. At the same time, the broader field
of psychology’s pursuit of tripartite reform in methods, anti-racist practices, and the-
ory development can be productively informed by educational psychologists’ efforts
in these areas. Therefore, in this paper, first I synthesize the current scholarship on
theory development with the goal of promoting similar efforts in educational psy-
chology. Then, I detail how the field of psychology’s tripartite reform efforts can
be enhanced by incorporating ideas and lessons learned from educational psycholo-
gists’ embrace of qualitative and mixed research methods (Meyer & Schutz, 2020;
Reber, 2016), its inchoate but growing efforts to reckon with racism and epistemic
injustice in scholarship (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014; Kidd et al., 2017; Lopez,
2022; Usher, 2018), and its ongoing efforts to reconceptualize both the methodology
and the consequences of measurement (Cizek, 2020; Flake, 2021). Finally, I outline
several productive directions for future research and practice, including ways to pro-
mote a more transparent and hospitable scholarly climate for theory development
13
as well as advocacy for more professional training in theory development, which is

equally as important as methodological training (K. Gray, 2017; Wentzel, 2021).
What Is Theory and How Is It Developed, Evaluated, and Integrated?
By describing how, and in some cases why, phenomena occur in the world, theories
productively organize empirical literature, differentiating promising from not-so-
promising directions for future research that would otherwise be difficult to discern
without theory (McPhetres et al., 2021; Szollsi & Donkin, 2021). Theories have two
predominant aspects: description and explanation, with individual theories varying
in their emphasis on each (McGann & Speelman, 2020). People tend to think first
of theory’s explanatory aspects, which depict why phenomena in the world mani-
fest (Borsboom et al., 2021). Explanatory aspects can describe relations among phe-
nomena (e.g., how knowledge and confidence relate to one another; Dunning, 2011),
afford predictions about phenomena (e.g., fostering self-efficacy increases academic
performance; Chemers et al., 2001), and in some cases, suggest ways to exert influ-
ence or control over those phenomena (e.g., providing digital self-regulated learning
support to students struggling in active learning courses improves their academic
performance; Bernacki et al., 2020).
The descriptive aspects of theory are less frequently discussed than the explana-
tory ones (McGann & Speelman, 2020). Descriptive aspects of a theory do not
depict why phenomena in the world manifest, rather their purpose is to provide
accurate, useful, and comprehensive portrayals of those phenomena. The descriptive
aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory made a significant
contribution to the field by expanding, elucidating, and organizing a wide array of
previously under-considered phenomena relevant to child development (e.g., meso-
systems, macrosystems). Descriptive aspects of theories are particularly useful when
they elucidate less-commonly-known phenomena or aspects of those phenomena.
For example, Schraw and colleagues’ (2007) research elaborated prior theories of
academic procrastination by describing an adaptive type as well as the conditions
posited to manifest both adaptive and maladaptive procrastination. More recently,
Skinner and colleagues’ (2022) expanded conceptualizations of bioecological mod-
els by detailing new varieties and consequences of collective mesosystem effects.
Psychologists have tended to enunciate, investigate, and disseminate the explana-
tory aspects of theories much more than the descriptive ones, which is unfortunate
given that each serves a unique role in theory development, and each informs the
other (Berkman & Wilson, 2021). In fact, observations of phenomena “in the wild,”
followed by systematic organization and descriptions of those phenomena, typically
precede the creation of a theory’s explanatory aspects (McGann & Speelman, 2021;
Teo, 2020). Piaget’s (1964) cognitive constructivist theory began with his obser-
vations (e.g., children’s incorrect answers on tests, his children’s behaviors) from
which he inferred phenomena (e.g., phases of cognitive development). Only after
producing those descriptions did he develop explanations for how and why those
phenomena manifest (e.g., equilibration). Likewise, effective descriptions can organ-
ize and thus better define disparate observations and empirical findings, revealing
13
gaps in understanding, surfacing non-intuitive effects or outcomes, and prompt-

ing the generation of new ideas or hypotheses about the world and how it works
(Borsboom et al., 2021; K. Gray, 2017; Teo, 2020). For example, Bandura’s (2001)
observations and eventual descriptions of how people could acquire and enact new
behaviors without direct reinforcement were not easily explained using existing
behaviorist theories. Behaviorism’s inability to explain these behaviors prompted
Bandura to develop a new theory that could, thus leading to social learning theory.
Theories can be developed and refined using any and all research methods. The
explanatory aspects of theory are often associated with quantitative research, but
qualitative and mixed methods research can also contribute to explanations (e.g.,
grounded theory; Charmaz, 2014). Likewise, descriptive aspects of theories often
arise from qualitative research, but quantitative findings also can elucidate new or
unexplored phenomena (e.g., systematic underperformance on achievement tests in
the presence of salient negative stereotypes; Spencer et al., 2016). Meta-analyses
can reveal unexplained heterogeneity in findings, which in turn can be explored via
qualitative research, with this mixed methods approach leading to better and more
elaborated descriptive aspects of theory (Linden & Honekopp, 2021; Patall, 2021).
In sum, novel insights about the descriptive or explanatory aspects of a theory can
arise from any and all types of research designs, and such insights can and should be
used to both develop and refine theory.
Theory Development
There is no one way to develop accurate and useful theory but a typical process can
be depicted (see Fig. 1). This process involves generation of theory’s descriptive
aspects and a related cycle where its explanatory aspects are posited and evaluated.
As depicted in the top of Fig. 1, findings related to the descriptive and explanatory
aspects of theory inform one another via epistemic iteration, ideally leading to a the-
ory where both aspects mutually support one another. Generating descriptive aspects
of theory and evaluating the explanatory aspects of theory both involve nuanced,
often long-term cycles, warranting a separate depiction in Fig. 2. Whether scholars
are conscious of the process or not, most typically theory development begins with
the observation of relevant phenomena, often called “natural history” in the natural
sciences (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021). The circle on the left side of Fig. 2 depicts
how observations are organized and generalized into phenomena, which in turn lead
to the descriptive aspects of theory. For example, Perry (1970) observed that some
college students excelled at understanding the relativism taught in higher education
whereas other students struggled. These observations prompted systematic research
that revealed consistent phenomena (i.e., types of thinking common across students)
that, in turn, led Perry to describe a model of intellectual and ethical development.
This model inspired many other researchers to investigate similar phenomena and
develop their own theories, evolving into the field of epistemic cognition (Greene
et al., 2016).
Once the descriptive aspects of a theory have been developed, scholars use abduc-
tion (i.e., inferencing to what a person thinks is the best explanation) to develop
13
Theory Development Process
descriptive aspects of explanatory aspects of

Epistemic Iteration
theory theory
Theory Evaluation and Integration
descriptive explanatory descriptive explanatory explanatory explanatory

aspects of aspects of aspects of aspects of aspects of aspects of
theory #1 theory #1 theory #2 theory #2 theory n theory n
Use theory virtues to select and integrate theories
Normative Normative
Descriptive Explanatory
Aspects of Aspects of
Theory Theory
Fig. 1 Theory development process
Descriptive and explanatory

aspects theories should
cohere; changes in one
Generating descriptive aspects of potentiate, but do not
Evaluating explanatory aspects of
theory necessitate, changes in the theory
other via epistemic iteration
Design,
Observations: measurement,
Natural History psychometrics,
researcher-as-
instrument
Research Foci:
Prediction, Data:
Empirical Descriptive Explanatory Hypothesis, Quantitative,
Observations: Intervention,
generalizations / aspects of aspects of
Natural History Transferability,
Qualitative,
Phenomena theory theory
Replication, Mixed
Meta-Analysis
Observations:
Natural History
Analysis
Directly
observable
Not directly-
observable
Induction
Abduction
Deduction
Fig. 2 Theory development cycles
13
explanations that relate phenomena, in causal and/or non-causal ways, and/or guide
interventions upon those phenomena (see the circle on the right side of Fig. 2). Eval-
uations of the explanatory aspects of a theory involve testing and refining posited
mechanisms and relations among phenomena, such as research on how knowledge
revision occurs via competing activation mechanisms (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2021;
Schroeder & Kucera, 2022). The results of such research can support or refute some
or all aspects of the explanation, sometimes leading to changes in either the explana-
tory or descriptive aspects of the theory, or both. This theory revision process is a
kind of epistemic iteration (see Fig. 1; Eronen & Romeijn, 2020; Haig, 2013; Irvine,
2021), such as when empirical findings (Bennett et al., 2008) forced reconsideration
of Prensky’s (2001) description of students as “digital natives.” It is also possible
for explanatory findings to generate new descriptive aspects of theory, such as when
discovery of an unanticipated relationship leads to new thinking about what phe-
nomena are important and relevant (e.g., forms of academic procrastination, Schraw
et al., 2007).
Of course, there are often many scholars developing their own theories in paral-
lel processes of theory development. This parallel theory development process is
depicted in the bottom of Fig. 1, using multiple pairs of circles, each its own single
theory development process as depicted at the top of Fig. 1 and in more detail in
Fig. 2. As an example of parallel theory development processes, despite not occur-
ring concurrently, both Vygotsky (1997) and Piaget (1964) developed theories of
cognitive development, which in the bottom of Fig. 1 would be depicted as theories
#1 and #2, respectively. The existence of numerous competing theories can make it
difficult for practitioners, policy-makers, and even scholars to determine which the-
ory or theories are most useful (Alexander et al., 2009; Willingham, 2017). There-
fore, at some point, multiple instances of theory development must be checked by
theory evaluation and integration.
Theory Evaluation and Integration
Compared to the natural sciences, in the social sciences, there is less press to drive
toward finding a single, universally accepted theory, but there is some consensus
that unchecked proliferation of more and more theories is suboptimal, particularly
for practitioners and policy-makers looking for guidance from the scholarly liter-
ature (Alexander et al., 2012; Borsboom et al., 2021; Teo, 2020). At some point,
theory evaluation and integration should occur, where the field elevates the most
just, effective, reliable, and beneficial theory, or aspects of theories, and sets the oth-
ers aside. In essence, psychologists can let a thousand theory flowers bloom, but at
some point, they need to decide which are the prettiest.
Theory evaluation and integration are two of the least discussed aspect of the
theory development process (Scheel et al., 2021). It can be difficult to consider aban-
doning some aspects or all of a theory (Gervais, 2021). T. S. Kuhn (1962) argued
theories are not disproven as often as they simply fade away when their adherents
retire from scholarship and the next generation of scholars take up a different theory.
Theory fadeout is not a rigorous path toward a cumulative science (Teo, 2020); more
13
thoughtful and systematic methods of theory evaluation and integration are needed.
Such methods include the use of criteria (Fidler et al., 2018) to decide which theo-
ries, or which aspects of many theories, are worthy of continued use (i.e., the bot-
tom of Fig. 1), always subject to additional scrutiny via further theory development
(Borsboom et al., 2021; Teo, 2020).
Whether consciously aware or not, many scholars have internalized a set of crite-
ria, or characteristics of desirable or useful theories (Fidler et al., 2018), which, of
course, vary from scholar to scholar and within and across academic disciplines and
subdisciplines. These criteria can be conceptualized as a set of virtues: all are valu-
able but, depending upon context, certain ones may carry more weight than others.
Table 1 is a list of such criteria, spanning numerous perspectives. It is important
to note that most of these criteria refer to the phenomena that the theory targets.
This further illustrates the importance of the descriptive aspects of theory, including
the collection of a wide and diverse array of observations, and then carefully gen-
eralizing them into phenomena. It is difficult to effectively evaluate a theory when
its descriptive aspects are underspecified, incomplete, or biased. For a theory with
robust descriptive and explanatory aspects, the more criteria it satisfies, the more
viable a candidate it is for becoming normative in the field. In some cases, schol-
ars can examine multiple theories and integrate aspects of each into a new theory,
using the criteria in Table 1 as a guide. Returning to the field of epistemic cognition
as an example, in the late twentieth century there were a multitude of competing
theories, which would be depicted in Fig. 1 as theories #1 through n. Hofer and
Pintrich (1997) wrote a synthetic review that evaluated and integrated these theories,
identifying similarities and differences in the phenomena and mechanisms posited,
ultimately using a variety of criteria to produce a single “normative” theory that
comprised some, but not all, of the aspects of the reviewed theories, depicted at the
bottom of Fig. 1.
The virtues used to evaluate and integrate theory can be grouped into those that
focus on criteria internal to the theory and those that address how the theory relates
to external theories or other factors (see Table 1). There are natural tensions among
criteria used to evaluate and integrate theory that preclude using them as a simple
checklist. For example, among the internal criteria, scope may not be perfectly, lin-
early, negatively related to parsimony, but the greater the scope the more likely it is
that the theory’s complexity must increase to maintain accuracy (O’Doherty, 2021).
Likewise, at earlier stages of theory development, certain criteria can take on greater
importance than later ones, such as in the case of plausibility, which can eventually
decrease in importance as evidence of testability accumulates (Scheel et al., 2021).
Testability and mechanism are, by definition, not relevant virtues for the descrip-
tive aspects of theories but are critical for the explanatory aspects, particularly those
involving causal claims. Again, testability does not necessarily imply quantitative
methods, as qualitative metrics such as transferability can provide evidence of test-
ability (Maxwell, 2021). Specificity is an important criterion because it precludes
“weak” theories with explanations that can survive multiple, contrary sets of find-
ings (Szollosi & Donkin, 2021).
There are fewer external than internal criteria, but the former are as impor-
tant as the latter. External consistency and analogy can serve as useful tools when
13
Table 1 Criteria used to select and integrate theory
Virtue category Virtue Definition
Internal criteria
Scope Addresses a wide range of phenomena while also being appropriately constrained by them
Unification How well the theory incorporates different phenomena and areas of knowledge
Parsimony Represents phenomena and their relations in the simplest ways possible
Plausibility Descriptions and consequences of theory seem likely given related literature
Fruitfulness Suggests new research questions, hypotheses, and/or practical applications
Accuracy Evidence supports theory’s representations of phenomena and their relations
Internal consistency or coherence Phenomena and relations addressed do not contradict one another
Mechanism Provides clear, precise description of how phenomena come about
Testability Predictions and explanations can be verified or disconfirmed in convincing manner
Specificity Theory explains what it is supposed to explain and is not so vague that it can survive any
empirical result
External criteria
External consistency or coherence Theory coheres with other established theories
Analogy Has similarities to other accepted theories
Practicality Is relevant, available, and useful to society
13
generating theory, and they serve a role in ongoing evaluation of the theory. For
example, it is virtuous that work on self-regulated strategy development for writing
(Harris & Graham, 1993) coheres with research in special education and teacher
professional development (McKeown et al., 2019). Consistency and analogy are
also important external criteria, with literature reviews and meta-analyses serving
as prominent ways to explore and share evidence relevant to these criteria (e.g.,
Graham, 2022). On the other hand, practicality has not received its due attention
in psychological theory development and evaluation (Berkman & Wilson, 2021;
Giner-Sorolla, 2019). Theories should be based on problems and interests that exist
in the real world and theories should imply actionable steps toward understanding
or addressing them. For example, Barzilai and Chinn (2018) have demonstrated
how the AIR model of epistemic cognition can be translated into actionable goals
for education, which is evidence in support of the practicality of the model. Often,
theory development, including phenomena generation and evaluation of explanatory
claims, can be improved by involving practitioners and other applied professionals
(Berkman & Wilson, 2021; Jackson, 2021), something educational psychologist do
often, but perhaps not often enough (Reber, 2016).
Criteria that serve as virtues in theory evaluation and integration must be com-
plimented by discussions of what theory is not (Gigerenzer, 2010). For example,
explanatory theories are not useful when the posited mechanism is merely a restate-
ment of the phenomena itself (e.g., defining the process of “self-regulation” as reg-
ulation). Similarly, creating a new term to serve as a proxy for theory is not use-
ful. Describing critical thinking as “advanced thought” does little beyond replacing
one term with another. Gigerenzer (2010) also critiqued theories defined by lists of
dichotomies, such as describing some kinds of cognitive processes as “automatic”
and others “deliberate” (Evans, 2019). A list of what is and is not a particular type
of thinking may capture phenomena but does little to explain how they emerge,
why they are or should be differentiated, etc. Graphical representations of theories
where every construct connects to every other construct, with no posited direction-
ality or strength, also do little to explicate phenomena. Such representations score
poorly on the criteria of parsimony (i.e., every construct connects to every other
construct), mechanism (i.e., vague relations are posited, rather than specific direc-
tionality or strengths of connections), testability (i.e., many phenomena are trivi-
ally correlated with no practical import), and practicality (i.e., the theory provides
no insight on where to begin affecting the system). Careful and rigorous theory
evaluation and integration, using criteria such as those in Table 1, are more likely
to result in normative theories that are just, effective, reliable, and beneficial (see
bottom of Fig. 1).
Summary of Theory Development Scholarship in Psychology
In sum, normative theory development, evaluation, and integration processes can be

articulated (e.g., Borsboom et al., 2021), which in turn enhance theory’s descriptive
and explanatory aspects as well as its practical import (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021;
Haig, 2005, 2013; Scheel et al., 2021). However, theory and theory development
13
processes are often not sufficiently taught to early career scholars (Borsboom et al.,
2021; K. Gray, 2017), making it relatively unsurprising that the field of psychology
suffers from “weak” theory (Kellen et al., 2021; Meehl, 1978) that fails to correct,
and in some cases amplifies, questionable research practices (Eronen & Bringmann,
2021; Fielder, 2017), leading to crises of replication (Open Science Collaboration,
2015), oppression (Buchanan et al., 2021), and impact (Oberauer & Lewandowsky,
2019). Educational psychology, as a subdiscipline of psychology, experiences many
of these challenges and would benefit from more careful and rigorous theory schol-
arship (Gehlbach & Robinson, 2021; Wentzel, 2021). At the same time, educational
psychologists have done important work that can inform how the field of psychol-
ogy, as a whole, addresses its tripartite crises, via theory development.
What Can Educational Psychology Scholarship Contribute to Theory

Development in Psychology?
The “theory crisis” in psychology extends to every subdiscipline of the field

(Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019). Yet, educational psychology scholarship and
contributions have been less than prominent in discussions of theory in psychology
writ large, such as in the special issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science in
2021 or in the journal Theory & Psychology. This is surprising given the subdisci-
pline of educational psychology has much to contribute to the theory discourse in
psychology, including ways to (1) build the descriptive aspects of theory (Scheel
et al., 2021; van Rooji & Baggio, 2021) that embrace anti-racism and race-focused
scholarship (Buchanan et al., 2021; Teo, 2020) and (2) conceptualize measurement
and its consequences (Flake & Fried, 2020) in ways that can guide practical deci-
sion-making. These foci have great promise for addressing the tripartite crises facing
educational psychology and the entire field of psychology, as well.
Building Descriptive Aspects of Theory
Observations are a crucial aspect of theory generation. Without sufficient, and

sufficiently diverse, observations, researchers may underspecify or even fail to
identify important phenomena. Imagine how ecological systems theory might
have been underspecified if Bronfenbrenner (1979) had never observed how fami-
lies interact with schools and thus had omitted mesosystem interactions (Skin-
ner et al., 2022). Phenomena also usefully constrain the explanatory aspect of
theory (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021; McGann & Speelman, 2020), providing the
empirical grounding with which theory must cohere. For these reasons, it is criti-
cal that psychology engage in sufficient “field work” to collect a comprehensive,
diverse set of observations and then conduct rigorous organization and infer-
ence to identify reliable phenomena (Jachimowicz, 2022). In fact, scholars have
argued that one reason for the “theory crisis” is that psychologists do not engage
in sufficient, and sufficiently diverse, observation, leaving the descriptive aspects
of their theories incomplete and the explanatory aspects insufficiently tested
13
(McGann & Speelman, 2020; Scheel et al., 2021). Engaging in sufficient amounts
of observation requires renewed focus on the “natural history” of psychology,
which Eronen and Bringmann (2021) analogized to the five years Darwin spent
collecting and cataloging butterflies before developing his theory of evolution by
natural selection. Insufficiently diverse samples, which increase the likelihood of
the descriptive aspects of theory being underspecified, were identified as one of
psychology’s many problems in the APA’s apology for its history of racism. The
subdiscipline of educational psychology can serve as a model of how to renew
psychology’s focus on observation and diverse samples, via the subdiscipline’s
recent efforts to better embrace qualitative and mixed methods research (Meyer
& Schutz, 2020) and race re-imaged research (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014).
Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research
Qualitative methodologies informed the early foundations of psychology research,

but then fell out of favor during much of the twentieth century before experiencing a
renaissance in the late 1900s and early 2000s (Levitt et al., 2018). Yet, surprisingly,
scholarship on theory development in psychology writ large has underemphasized
qualitative and mixed methods research, despite scholars’ calls to expand observation
and phenomenon development to create more and better-formed descriptive aspects
of theory (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021; McCann & Speelman, 2020). Indeed, quali-
tative methods are uniquely suited for observation and the inference of phenomena
that often typify the early stages of theory development (Haig, 2005), akin to Dar-
win’s “field work” in the natural sciences. Educational psychology’s efforts to more
fully embracing qualitative and mixed methods arguably began in the early years of
the twenty-first century (Meyer & Schutz, 2020). Qualitative methods have been used
to abduce theory, such as via inferring a developmental progression of positions from
interviews with college students (e.g., Perry, 1970). Qualitative and mixed method-
ologies can drive theory revision, as well, such as when Greene and Yu (2014) used
interviews with middle school students and professors to investigate why survey meas-
ures of epistemic cognition had such poor evidence of psychometric validity. Argu-
ably, in some cases in the past, theory development in educational psychology began
with qualitative observations that were not named as such. For example, Zimmerman’s
observations of children in classrooms watching peers led to a descriptive theory of
cognitive modeling, which when combined with scholarship in the areas of metacog-
nition and motivation, led to his model of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2013).
Qualitative and mixed methods research have made important contributions to theory
generation and development in educational psychology, as such, these methods seem
likely to make similar contributions to psychology writ large.
Educational psychology’s embrace of qualitative and mixed methods may have
been facilitated by its emphasis on scholarship with practical implications for teach-
ing and learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2002). A theory is practical when it has
defensible, actionable implications for addressing real-world problems (Berkman
& Wilson, 2021). Understanding real-world problems, and providing practical
proposals for addressing them, requires working with participants and community
members to gather and understand informative observations that comprehensively
13
capture multiple aspects and nuances of the context (Jackson, 2021), practices that
are ideally suited for qualitative and mixed methods research. Novel applications of
theory are more feasible when scholars and practitioners understand the contexts in
which that theory was developed, so that they can engage in informed modifications,
as described by another promising methodology in educational psychology and the
learning sciences: design-based research (Sandoval & Bell, 2004). In sum, qualita-
tive, mixed methods, and design-based research can and should play a prominent
role in the theory development process. In addition, the use of these methodologies
can reveal when the exclusion of particular populations from theory generation has
led to underspecified or wholly inaccurate scholarship in need of reform (DeCuir-
Gunby & Schutz, 2014).
Race Re‑imaged Research
Psychological research and theory have been aptly criticized as being much too
heavily dependent upon samples, and thus observations, derived from people from
Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (i.e., WEIRD) societies
(Henrich et al., 2010). These critiques were included in APA’s (2021) apology and
informed several of its resolutions, including those related to research:
APA will prioritize efforts in knowledge production and scholarship, such
as those that enhance psychology’s scientific methods based on culturally
diverse knowledge production, and those that create mechanisms to count and
acknowledge all racial and ethnic groups in APA-sponsored research (Resolu-
tions section)
When researchers aim to generalize to heterogeneous populations (e.g., all stu-
dents in the USA), homogeneity in sampling can lead to biased or incomplete sets
of observations, resulting in narrow or mis-specified phenomena, which in turn can
lead to partially or wholly inaccurate theories to describe or explain those phenom-
ena. These concerns about insufficient collection of diverse observations, and its
consequences for theory, echo DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz’s (2014) critiques of the
limited observations and WEIRD samples that have informed educational psychol-
ogy research and theory.
These critiques led DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz (2014) to call for more race-
focused research, or scholarship focused on constructs such as racial identity, high-
lighting educational psychology’s failure to gather sufficient observations of relevant
phenomena (e.g., racial socialization) that are integral to many students’ experience.
Likewise, their call for race-reimaged research, scholarship to reconceptualize con-
structs developed with limited samples by incorporating more diverse and sociohis-
torical perspectives, reflects a recognition that limited observations of phenomena
can lead to theories that, in some cases, must be rebuilt “from the ground up” to be
applicable to a more diverse group of people (e.g., theories of motivation; D. Gray
et al., 2018). As an example of the value of race-reimaged empirical research, Fong
and colleagues (2019) found that the construct of belongingness (i.e., being liked,
respected, and valued; Goodenow, 1993) did not accurately represent the experi-
ence of Indigenous students in the USA. Belongingness for these students included
13
phenomena related to cultural identity, family, community, and self-empowerment;

these phenomena were absent from theories of motivation derived from WEIRD
samples. Fong and colleagues’ research illustrated the importance of engaging in
more, and more diverse, “phenomena detection” (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021, p. 6)
before theorizing, lest the resulting theory be under- or mis-specified.
To truly address historical, systemic racism in psychology per the APA’s resolu-
tions, race-focused and race re-imaged research must be valued and lifted up across
the psychology scholarly literature (e.g., DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014; Matthews
& Lopez, 2020; Zusho & Kumar, 2018). Ignorance of the experience of racial
minorities or outright rejection of those experiences are forms of epistemic injustice
(i.e., systemic exclusion of voices during the pursuit of knowledge; Fricker, 2007;
Kidd et al., 2017) that, given their effects upon these people and the world writ
large, requires no further argument to eliminate from the field. Racism is a promi-
nent form of injustice in the USA and many, but not all, other countries; in addition,
there are other forms of epistemic injustice that result in unwanted and damaging
homogeneity in sampling and theorizing, such as psychology’s failure to adequately
address humanity’s cultural and nationality diversity (Gervais, 2021). In sum, epis-
temic injustice can result in the omission of important observations that can and
should inform the inference of phenomena, with subsequent damage to the theory
developed to describe and explain those phenomena. Omission of important obser-
vations can also affect how phenomena are measured and interpreted.
The Ethics of Measurement
In psychology, there has been insufficient attention to methodological transpar-

ency and ethical issues in measurement (Flake & Fried, 2020). Scholars fre-
quently fail to adequately define constructs or sufficiently detail how to measure
them (Kellen et al., 2021), which in turn make it difficult for other scholars to
replicate or build upon that work (Eronen & Romeijn, 2020; Grahek et al., 2021;
Smaldino, 2019). Likewise, instrument development studies often involve homo-
geneous, WEIRD samples, calling into question their generalizability outside of
those samples. Flake (2021) has articulated the need for more rigorous and trans-
parent measurement research, otherwise empirical findings that contradict estab-
lished theory (e.g., failure to replicate) could be explained away by claiming dif-
ferences in sample or administration procedures, or appeals to unstated or unclear
assumptions (e.g., a posited effect failed to replicate due to incorrect order of
instrument administration; Kellen et al., 2021). Reforms in how measures are
developed, disseminated, and tested are all important, but another area of reform
that has received even less attention concerns the ethics of measurement.
APA’s (2021) apology includes past measurement atrocities committed in the
name of psychology and its advancement: “WHEREAS eugenicists focused on
the measurement of intelligence, health, and capability, concepts which were
adopted by the field of psychology and used systemically to create the ideology
of White supremacy and harm communities of color” (About this Resolution sec-
tion). The apology also rejected “hegemonic science” (APA, 2021, Resolutions
13
section). The apology clearly indicates a need for thoughtful, ethical, and benevo-
lent approach to measurement, among other scholarly practices, but lacks detail
on how to enact such an approach.
One of many necessary ways to reject hegemonic science and its deplorable con-
sequences for communities of color is to reprioritize a neglected aspect of validity in
measurement research. Debates about validity, including what comprises it and how
to establish it, are prominent in the measurement literature (Messick, 1989). How-
ever, those debates have been particularly heated regarding whether “consequential
validity” (i.e., the effects upon people or society that result from test use) should be
included as a type of validity (e.g., Popham, 1997). Given psychology’s history of
support for eugenics, systemic racism, and oppression, it seems important to incor-
porate consequences into any consideration of measurement validity, somehow.
Cizek’s (2020) reconceptualization of validity provides a path forward that psychol-
ogy, writ large, would benefit from considering. He differentiates efforts to gather
evidence to support claims that inferences from a score indicate what was intended
(i.e., score meaning) from efforts to gather evidence to support claims that the score
can justifiably be used in a particular manner (i.e., test use; Cizek, 2016). This dif-
ferentiation clarifies that there may be acceptable justification for an interpretation
of scores, but that nonetheless the use of those scores for a particular purpose may
still be unjustified, thus invalidating their use. A familiar example is the SAT, where
psychometricians may assert ample evidence defending the construct validity evi-
dence in favor of subscale scores as indicators of underlying verbal or mathematical
ability (i.e., score meaning; Cizek, 2016). Such evidence is necessary if those scores
are used to inform college admissions decisions, but that evidence is not nearly suf-
ficient to make and justify decisions of such import. The question of whether SAT
scores should be used when making college admissions decisions depends upon a
host of practical, ethical, and societal factors, far beyond questions of psychomet-
ric validity. In essence, separating questions about the quality of measurement (e.g.,
“Does the SAT adequately measure mathematical ability?”) from questions about
the consequences of its use (e.g., “Are SAT scores an appropriate factor in college
admissions decisions given the societal disparities in resources available to fund
preparation for the SAT?”) affords more informed and specific focus on each, thus
allowing psychologists to reject eugenics and hegemonic science due to their con-
sequences alone, rather than having to also debate other aspects of validity theory
and evidence. Such differentiation and reprioritization of consequential validity is
necessary in an era when psychology seeks to make measurement, and its conse-
quences, more rigorous, transparent, ethical, and benevolent (APA, 2021; Flake &
Fried, 2020).
Summary of Educational Psychology’s Contributions to Theory Development

Scholarship
Educational psychologists have done admirable work regarding how to concep-

tualize measurement in ways that clarify and privilege ethics (Cizek, 2020),
rigor, and transparency (Flake, 2021), and also regarding how to build better
13
descriptive aspects of theory via qualitative, mixed, and race-focused and re-
reimaged scholarship (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014; Meyer & Schutz, 2020)
that would likely enhance theory reform in psychology writ large. Such theory
reform is a necessary companion to the method and ethical reform necessary
to build a psychology that is truly just, effective, reliable, and beneficial. How-
ever, once again, it would be incorrect to state that educational psychology has
completely and fully embraced methods for expanding descriptive theory and
measurement in rigorous and ethical ways. Nor is it the case that educational
psychology has adequately or sufficiently addressed methodological and ethical
concerns about its past, present, or future. There is yet much more reform work
to do, within psychology writ large and its subdisciplines.
Future Directions for Enhancing Theory Development in Psychology
There is a “theory crisis” in psychology (Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019) that,

along with the field’s methodological and ethical crises, must be addressed for the
field to achieve its goals of benefitting society and improving lives. Formal apolo-
gies (APA, 2021), special issues (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021), and ongoing critique
(Teo, 2020) are all important steps toward necessary reform in psychology. The
subdisciplines of psychology, including educational psychology, must be a part of
this reform movement. That requires translating methodological, ethical, and theory
development lessons learned across these subdisciplines (e.g., Gehlbach & Robin-
son, 2021) and communicating effective ideas and practices back to the field writ
large. In this paper, I have argued that educational psychologists and the theories
they use would benefit from greater attention to the scholarship of theory develop-
ment (McPhetres et al., 2021). Likewise, educational psychologists have much to
contribute to that scholarship, including ways to build better descriptive aspects of
theory and conceptualizations of measurement validity that properly clarify and pri-
oritize the consequences of test use. These contributions reveal future directions for
reform and innovation as well, particularly around acknowledging and combatting
ableism in psychology scholarship, creating a hospitable climate for theory revision,
increasing transparency in theory development, and more deeply incorporating the-
ory development into psychology’s preparation programs.
Ableism
The APA’s (2021) apology to people of color included a number of commitments

for action as well as resolutions for potential future actions. One of those resolu-
tions included potential actions to address long-standing oppression based on dis-
ability identity. Psychology scholarship involving disabilities has a history of being
compartmentalized from the rest of the field (Brown et al., 2011), which can lead to
the marginalization of people who identify as having one or more disabilities. Such
compartmentalization and marginalization are unjust on their face, and in addition,
the exclusion of people with disabilities from psychology scholarship is yet another
13
example of homogeneity and exclusion in sampling that can have negative effects
upon the quality, accuracy, and utility of theory (Giner-Sorolla, 2019). Emery and
Anderman (2020) have made similarly relevant critiques of educational psycholo-
gy’s failure to collect sufficiently diverse and numerate observations for theory gen-
eration, including insufficient attention to the experience of students with disabili-
ties. Clearly, psychologists should pursue disability-focused and disability re-imaged
scholarship, as educational psychologists have begun to do around race (Matthews
& Lopez, 2020; Zusho & Kumar, 2018). As is the case for research focused on race
(DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014), the results of disability-focused and disability
re-imaged research may necessitate theories in educational psychology be revised
“from the ground up” to more fully incorporate views, experiences, and phenomena
uncovered from field work with students with disabilities.
Creating a Hospitable Climate for Theory Revision
The process of epistemic iteration, and in particular instances where the descrip-
tive or explanatory aspects of a theory are justifiably set aside, can feel threaten-
ing (Gervais, 2021), particularly when calls for dismissal come from others (e.g.,
Hagger et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the revision and even the dismissal of theory are
normal and important aspects of how scholarly disciplines like psychology advance,
and as such it is important to create a scholarship climate where epistemic itera-
tion is treated as normal and even an expected part of the field’s ongoing theory
development process. Deciding that the weight of evidence warrants setting aside
a theory is indeed a scholarly advance, and it should be honored as such, with no
shame to those who first asserted the theory. Such climates decrease the likelihood
of epistemic injustice (Kidd et al., 2017), particularly for groups historically under-
represented in the literature who rightly question the applicability of narrow theory
to their experience.
Educational psychologists would be wise to model a more accepting scholarly
climate, which would necessarily include disseminating scholarship that illustrates
epistemic iteration. Importantly, such iteration requires well-elaborated explana-
tory and descriptive aspects of theory, particularly given that the former can use-
fully circumscribe and vet the latter (Haig, 2005, 2013; Scheel et al., 2021). Schol-
ars should be encouraged to publish evidence that the descriptive or explanatory
aspects of their theories require revision, which necessarily requires that scholarship
venues (e.g., journals, conferences) accept and disseminate well-justified theoreti-
cal critiques (Zengilowski et al., 2021) and statistically non-significant findings that
elucidate theory (Greene et al., 2022), avoiding the “file-drawer” problem (Fleming
et al., 2021) that can pervert quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research.
Further, there is a need for salient and explicit conversations about the criteria schol-
ars could and should use to evaluate theory and move toward productive integration
(Fidler et al., 2018). A healthy climate for theory revision is likely to lead to more
productive and transparent theory development.
13
Transparency in Theory Development
Just as the replication crisis has prompted calls for greater transparency in educa-
tional psychology methods (Gehlbach & Robinson, 2021) and measurement (Flake,
2021), there is a need for greater transparency in theory development. For exam-
ple, observations are crucial to the development of the descriptive aspects of theory.
Without sufficient, and sufficiently diverse, observations, researchers will struggle
to infer a comprehensive sense of the relevant phenomena, which in turn may con-
strain the creation and vetting of the explanatory aspects of theories (Fielder, 2017).
For these reasons, it is critical that psychologists engage in sufficient field work to
collect these observations and then sufficient reflection to deeply understand and
characterize the phenomena they indicate. Yet, psychology does not have a strong
history of supporting field work or “natural history” research, such as what is quite
typical and valued in the natural sciences (McGann & Speelman, 2020; Scheel et al.,
2021). There must be changes in the incentive structure for gathering observations,
inferring phenomena, and developing the descriptive aspects of theory (Jachimow-
icz, 2022). Journals should more explicitly welcome scholarship focused on these
aspects of the theory generation. Likewise, scholars who evaluate their colleagues’
contributions (e.g., external reviews for promotion or tenure) should not look
askance at rigorous, thoughtful, and comprehensive collection and organization of
observations. Well-vetted empirical testing of theory is certainly valuable, but the
field should also recognize the critical role of the descriptive aspects of theory in the
pursuit of knowledge.
In essence, there is a need for greater transparency in the entire “lifespan” of a
theory, from details regarding how and why phenomena and the descriptive aspects
of the theory were inferred, to the various ways explanatory aspects were devel-
oped and tested, through the various epistemic iterations that occur in the process
of further refining the descriptive and explanatory aspects of theory, through to the
social process of theory integration. Each phase of theory development can and
should be implemented rigorously and then reported transparently, over short- and
long-periods of time. Reporting on the lifespan of a theory, or theories, may require
a new type of article: a theory review. Literature review articles tend to identify a
theory and then synthesize empirical work related to that theory (Boote & Beile,
2005). Review articles certainly can include, organize, and even integrate theories
(e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), but such reviews are rare. Developing a specific type
of review article, detailing the generation, iteration, and development of theory, or
multiple related theories, would be a useful way to document and disseminate the
evolution of an area of scholarship while also identifying decisions made, paths not
taken, and ideas worth reconsidering. Further, having clear records of the theory
development process would enable scholars-in-training to trace the history of a the-
ory and therefore better understand how to use, critique, and potentially improve
that theory (Gigerenzer, 2010).
13
Incorporating Theory Generation, Evaluation, and Development Into Training

Programs
The replication crisis has led to calls for the incorporation of Open Science meth-
odologies and sensibilities into scholarly training programs (van der Zee & Reich,
2018). Such calls must be matched with similar movements to include instruction
on theory, as well (K. Gray, 2017). In times of shrinking budgets and students who
understandably wish to keep their professional training, which often requires an
underpaid apprenticeship, as short as possible, it can be challenging to find room
for even more methodological and theory training. Nonetheless, just, effective, reli-
able, and beneficial psychological contributions to society require rigorous methods
guided by well-developed theory that result in actionable and practical implications
(Meehl, 1990). A healthy psychological science requires deep knowledge of and
skills in theory generation, evaluation, and integration, which clearly connect to and
require similar depth in terms of methods. Efficiencies may be realized when theory
and method topics, which are often taught separately, are instead presented as they
are enacted in practice: in dynamic interaction with one another, allowing for itera-
tion to better scholarly outcomes.
Conclusion
The American Psychological Association (2022) is not yet adequately living its mis-
sion to advance and apply psychological science and knowledge to benefit society,
and it is fair to say that the field must enact significant changes to improve the qual-
ity, reliability, and morality of scholarship and practice. Concerns about the qual-
ity of scholarship in psychology date to well before the replication “crisis” (e.g.,
Meehl, 1978) but have been heightened since that crisis highlighted the question-
able reproducibility of some of the most accepted psychological findings. The
field’s foci on methodology (Gehlbach & Robinson, 2021; Open Science Collabora-
tion, 2015) and ethics (APA, 2021) are most welcome but must be buttressed with
a focus on improving theory development, as well (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021).
The subdiscipline of educational psychology faces the same challenges as the field
writ large, thus there is a clear need for greater focus on how theory is developed,
how to disseminate it effectively, and how to properly value such work. In addition,
educational psychology’s efforts to adopt a diverse set of research methods to bet-
ter understand and describe phenomena and better account for the consequences of
testing serve as lessons that the rest of psychology would be well to learn. Greater
transparency and communication about theory development, within and across the
many subdisciplines of psychology, is needed to realize the field’s benefits to society
and properly prepare the next generation of scholars and practitioners who wish to
do the same, and more.
13
Acknowledgements The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not nec-
essarily reflective of any other organization with whom the author is affiliated. I would like to thank
Brian Cartiff, Clark Chinn, Vic Deekens, Hunter Gehlbach, Panayiota Kendeou, Shelbi Kuhlmann, Lisa
Linnenbrink-Garcia, and Robert Plumley for their feedback on this work.
Author Contribution Not applicable.
Funding Portions of this work were funded by a Kenan Senior Faculty Research and Scholarly Leave
from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Data Availability Not applicable.
Code Availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
References
American Psychological Association. (2022). Impact APA. Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/about/
apa/strategic-plan. Accessed 24 Jan 2022.
American Psychological Association. (2021). Apology to people of color for APA’s role in promoting,
perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in US:
[Resolution adopted by the APA Council of Representatives]. Apology to people of color for APA’s
role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human
hierarchy in US https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology. Accessed 24 Jan 2022.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of read-
ers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education,
National Institute of Education, & Center for the Study of Reading.
Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Greene, J. A. (2012). Projecting educational psychology’s future from
its past and present: A trend analysis. In APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories,
constructs, and critical issues. (pp. 3–32). American Psychological Association.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A Topographical
Perspective Considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461
520903029006
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic perfor-
mance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.
1392968
13
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2020). A review of educational responses to the “post-truth” condition:
Four lenses on “post-truth” problems. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 107–119. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evi-
dence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00793.x
Berkman, E. T., & Wilson, S. M. (2021). So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in (social)
psychological theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 864–874. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1745691620969650
Bernacki, M. L., Vosicka, L., & Utz, J. C. (2020). Can a brief, digital skill training intervention help
undergraduates “learn to learn” and improve their STEM achievement? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 112(4), 765. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000405
Bogart, K. R., & Dunn, D. S. (2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3),
650–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12354
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation
literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X034006003
Borsboom, D., van der Mass, H., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A., & Haig, B. (2021). Theory construction
methodology: A practical framework for theory formation in psychology. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 16(4), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press.
Brown, M., Duff, H., Karatzias, T., & Horsburgh, D. (2011). A review of the literature relating to
psychological interventions and people with intellectual disabilities: Issues for research, policy,
education and clinical practice. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 15(1), 31–45. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1744629511401166
Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in psycho-
logical science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and dissemi-
nated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905
Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2021). KReC-MD: Knowledge revision with multiple documents. Edu-
cational Psychology Review, 33, 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college stu-
dent performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2020). Disagreeing about how to know: The instructional
value of explorations into knowing. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2020.1786387
Cizek, G. J. (2016). Validating test score meaning and defending test score use: Different aims, differ-
ent methods. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 212–225. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1063479
Cizek, G. J. (2020). Validity: An integrated approach to test score meaning and use. Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780429291661
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Schutz, P. A. (2014). Researching race within educational psychology con-
texts. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.
957828
Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance.
In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247–296). Academic Press. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6
Emery, A., & Anderman, L. H. (2020). Using interpretive phenomenological analysis to advance the-
ory and research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 55(4), 220–231. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1787170
Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620
970586
Eronen, M. I., & Romeijn, J.-W. (2020). Philosophy of science and the formalization of psychological
theory. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320969876
13
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2018). Dual process theory: Perspectives and problems. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Current

issues in thinking and reasoning. Dual process theory 2.0 (p. 137–155). Routledge/Taylor & Fran-
cis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-9
Fidler, F., Thorn, F. S., Barnett, A., Kambouris, S., & Kruger, A. (2018). The epistemic importance of
establishing the absence of an effect. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,
1(2), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770407
Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity
and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1745691616654458
Flake, J. K. (2021). Strengthening the foundation of educational psychology by integrating construct
validation into open science reform. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00461520.2021.1898962
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices
and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–
465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
Fleming, J. I., Wilson, S. E., Hart, S. A., Therrien, W. J., & Cook, B. G. (2021). Open accessibility in
education research: Enhancing the credibility, equity, impact, and efficiency of research. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 56(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593
Fong, C. J., Alejandro, A. J., Krou, M. R., Segovia, J., & Johnston-Ashton, K. (2019). Ya’at’eeh: Race-
reimaged belongingness factors, academic outcomes, and goal pursuits among Indigenous com-
munity college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101805. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101805
Frankel, K. K., Becker, B. L., Rowe, M. W., & Pearson, P. D. (2016). From “what is reading?” to what is
literacy? Journal of Education, 196(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741619600303
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power & the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Gehlbach, H., & Robinson, C. D. (2021). From old school to open science: The implications of new
research norms for educational psychology and beyond. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 79–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961
Gervais, W. M. (2021). Practical methodological reform needs good theory. Perspectives on Psychologi-
cal Science, 16(4), 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620977471
Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 733–
743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310378184
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2019). From crisis of evidence to a “crisis” of relevance? Incentive-based answers for
social psychology’s perennial relevance worries. European Review of Social Psychology, 30(1),
1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1542902
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motiva-
tion and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431693013001002
Graesser, A. C. (2009). Cognitive scientists prefer theories and testable principles with teeth. Educational
Psychologist, 44(3), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029022
Graham, S. (2022). A walk through the landscape of writing: Insights from a program of writing research.
Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1951734
Grahek, et al. (2021). Anatomy of a psychological theory: Integrating construct-validation and compu-
tational-modeling methods to advance theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4),
803–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966794
Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for inter-
personal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2),
97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421466
Gray, K. (2017). How to map theory: Reliable methods are fruitless without rigorous theory. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 12(5), 731–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617691949
Greene, J. A., Duke, R. F., Freed, R., Dragnić-Cindrić, D., & Cartiff, B. M. (2022). Effects of an ego-
depletion intervention upon online learning. Computers & Education, 177, 104362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104362
Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Introduction to epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene,
W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.). Handbook of Epistemic Cognition (pp. 495–510). New York:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795225
13
Greene, J. A., & Yu, S. B. (2014). Modeling and measuring epistemic cognition: A qualitative re-inves-
tigation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2013.10.002
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C. Birt, A. R., Zwienenberg,
M. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 11(4), 546–573 https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
Haig, B. D. (2005). An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 371–388.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.371
Haig, B. D. (2013). Detecting psychological phenomena: Taking bottom-up research seriously. American
Journal of Psychology, 126(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0135
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process.
Academic Press.
Hattie, J., Hodis, F. A., & Kang, S. H. (2020). Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.
101865
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302),
29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowl-
edge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
Irvine, E. (2021). The role of replication studies in theory building. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-
ence, 16(4), 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970558
Jachimowicz, J. M. (2022). Embracing field studies as a tool for learning. Nature Reviews Psychology 1–3
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00047-x
Jackson, C. (2021). Democratizing the development of evidence. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X211060357
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning
(SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist,
54(3), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
Kellen, D., Davis-Stober, C., Dunn, J. C., & Kalish, M. (2021). The problem of coordination and the
pursuit of structural constraints in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 767–
778. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3eupv
Kidd, I. J., Medina, J., & Pohlhaus G. (2017). Introduction to the Routledge handbook of epistemic injus-
tice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injus-
tice (pp. 1–9). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018).
Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed
methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force
report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Linden, A. H., & Hönekopp, J. (2021). Heterogeneity of research results: A new perspective from which
to assess and promote progress in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
16(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964193
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in edu-
cation: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 3(2), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216644450
Lopez, F. (2022). Can educational psychology by harnessed to make changes for the greater good? Edu-
cational Psychologist, 57(2), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2052293
Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, B. G., & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research
practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X211001356
Matthews, J. S., & López, F. (2020). Race-reimaging educational psychology research: Investigating con-
structs through the lens of race and culture. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101878.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101878
Maxwell, J. A. (2021). Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qualitative Psychology,
8(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000173
McGann, M., & Speelman, C. P. (2020). Two kinds of theory: What psychology can learn from Einstein.
Theory & Psychology, 30(5), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320937804
13
McKeown, D. Brindle, M. Harris, K. R. Sandmel, K. Steinbrecher, T. D. Graham, S. … Oakes, W. P.

(2019). Teachers’ voices: Perceptions of effective professional development and classwide imple-
mentation of self-regulated strategy development in writing. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 56(3), 753–791 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218804146
McPhetres, J. Albayrak-Aydemir, N. Barbosa. A Mendes Chow, E. C. Gonzalez-Marquez, P. Loukras,
E. … Volodko, K. (2021). A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009–2019).
PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0247986 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247986
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of
soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4), 806–834. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psy-
chological Reports, 66(1), 195–244. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103).
Macmillan.
Meyer, D. K., & Schutz, P. A. (2020). Why talk about qualitative and mixed methods in educational psy-
chology? Introduction to Special Issue. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 193–196. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2020.1796671
Mischel, W. (2008). The toothbrush problem. APS Observer, 21(11). https://www.psychologicalscience.
org/observer/ the-toothbrush-problem
Munafò, M. R. Nosek, B. A. Bishop, D. V. Button, K. S. Chambers, C. D. Sert, N. P. Du … Ioannidis, J.P.
(2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1(1), 1–9 https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019
Murphy, J., Vallières, F., Bentall, R. P., et al. (2021). Psychological characteristics associated with
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nature Communi-
cations, 12, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20226-9
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behavior, 3(3), 221–229.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bul-
letin & Review, 26, 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2
O’Doherty, K. C. (2020). Theoretical dialogue and interdisciplinary relevance: Thirty years of Theory
& Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320981420
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Sci-
ence, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Patall, E. A. (2021). Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical growth in the college years. Holt, Reinhart, & Wilson.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning
and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0663.95.4.667
Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological
Inquiry, 21(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478401003676501
Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern, wrong concept. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.
Reber, R. (2016). The theory crisis in psychology. Psychology Today.
Säljö, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 44(3), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029030
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context:
Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985e
p3904_1
Scheel, et al. (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vekpu
13
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic
procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.99.1.12
Schroeder, N. L., & Kucera, A. C. (2022). Refutation text facilitates learning: A meta-analysis of
between-subjects experimented. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10648-021-09656-z
Skinner, E. A., Rickert, N. P., Vollet, J. W., & Kindermann, T. A. (2022). The complex social ecology
of academic development: A bioecological framework and illustration examining the collective
effects of parents, teachers, and peers on student engagement. Educational Psychologist, 57(2),
87–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2038603
Smaldino, P. (2019). Better methods can’t make up for mediocre theory. Nature, 575, 9. https://doi.org/
10.1038/d41586-019-03350-5
Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67,
415–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235
Szollosi, A., & Donkin, C. (2021). Arrested theory development: The misguided distinction between
exploratory and confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 717–724.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966796
Teo, T. (2020). Theorizing in psychology: From the critique of a hyper-science to conceptualizing subjec-
tivity. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 759–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320930271
Thacker, I., Sinatra, G. M., Muis, K. R., Danielson, R. W., Pekrun, R., Winne, P. H., & Chevrier, M.
(2020). Using persuasive refutation texts to prompt attitudinal and conceptual change. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 112(6), 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000434
Usher, E. L. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural relevance.
Zee van der, T. Reich, J. (2018). Open Education Science. AERA Open 4 3 https://doi.org/10.1177/23328
58418787466
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory
theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/
osf.io/7qbpr
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psy-
chology (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.
Wentzel, K. R. (2021). Open science reforms: Strengths, challenges, and future directions. Educational
Psychologist, 56(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1901709
Willingham, D. T. (2017). A mental model of the learner: Teaching the basic science of educational psy-
chology to future teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 11(4), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/
mbe.12155
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 173–
187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_2
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path.
Zengilowski, A., Schuetze, B. A., Nash, B. L., & Schallert, D. L. (2021). A critical review of the refuta-
tion text literature: Methodological confounds, theoretical problems, and possible solutions. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 56(3), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1861948
BJ Zimmerman DH SchunkEds 2002 Educational psychology: A century of contributions: A Project of
Division 15 (educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Society Routledge https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315734255
Zusho, A., & Kumar, R. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: Critical reflections and future directions
in the study of race, ethnicity, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 61–63. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1432362
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Greene2022 Article WhatCanEducationalPsychologyLe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greene2022 Article WhatCanEducationalPsychologyLe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Psychology Review

What Can Educational Psychology Learn From,

Accepted: 5 May 2022

Keywords Theory · Theory development · Open science · Research methods

on theory development in educational psychology have been less prominent but

as well as advocacy for more professional training in theory development, which is

What Is Theory and How Is It Developed, Evaluated, and Integrated?

gaps in understanding, surfacing non-intuitive effects or outcomes, and prompt-

Theory Development Process

descriptive aspects of explanatory aspects of

Theory Evaluation and Integration

descriptive explanatory descriptive explanatory explanatory explanatory

Use theory virtues to select and integrate theories

Fig. 1 Theory development process

Descriptive and explanatory

Fig. 2 Theory development cycles

Theory Evaluation and Integration

Summary of Theory Development Scholarship in Psychology

In sum, normative theory development, evaluation, and integration processes can be

What Can Educational Psychology Scholarship Contribute to Theory

The “theory crisis” in psychology extends to every subdiscipline of the field

Building Descriptive Aspects of Theory

Observations are a crucial aspect of theory generation. Without sufficient, and

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research

Qualitative methodologies informed the early foundations of psychology research,

Race Re‑imaged Research

phenomena related to cultural identity, family, community, and self-empowerment;

The Ethics of Measurement

In psychology, there has been insufficient attention to methodological transpar-

Summary of Educational Psychology’s Contributions to Theory Development

Educational psychologists have done admirable work regarding how to concep-

Future Directions for Enhancing Theory Development in Psychology

There is a “theory crisis” in psychology (Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019) that,

The APA’s (2021) apology to people of color included a number of commitments

Creating a Hospitable Climate for Theory Revision

Transparency in Theory Development

Incorporating Theory Generation, Evaluation, and Development Into Training

Author Contribution Not applicable.

Data Availability Not applicable.

Code Availability Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2018). Dual process theory: Perspectives and problems. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Current

McKeown, D. Brindle, M. Harris, K. R. Sandmel, K. Steinbrecher, T. D. Graham, S. … Oakes, W. P.

You might also like

Fig. 1 Theory development process

Fig. 2 Theory development cycles