What Can Educational Psychology Learn From, and Contribute to, Theory Development Scholarship?

Abstract

One of the field of psychology’s stated goals is to produce scholarship with findings 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 methodological, 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 development, both in the field of psychology broadly as well as in its subdisciplines, including 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 importance 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 theory 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, furthering theory development transparency, and more deeply integrating theory development into preparation programs.

Investigating bifactor modeling of biology undergraduates’ task values and achievement goals across semesters.

“…However, before the implications of measurement findings can be used to refine theory, psychometric explanations for unexpected item functioning must be explored (Greene, 2022). We examined the measurement of SEVT using a widely adopted item set that has been developed by theory authors (Battle & Wigfield, 2003), adapted by additional scholars (Perez et al 2014), and rigorously investigated here and in other scholarship (Muenks et al, 2023; Part et al 2020).…”

“…These findings provide further evidence that for continued evolution of EVT, there is potentially great value in specifying “exactly how the various components would aggregate to form either the STV of individual achievement-related task or the relative STVs across several different task(s)” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020, p. 6). It may be that situated EVT should be expanded to formally conceptualize a general SVT factor, with subsequent implications for how to reconceptualize the more specific values and costs via a process of epistemic iteration (Greene, 2022). As students navigate changes in the instructional context during the course of their STEM degree pursuit, bifactor modeling that parses the specificity and dimensionality of student motivation may provide important insight into students’ perception of their courses, the opportunities they provide for learning, and their expectancy that they can engage productively in them (Byrnes & Miller, 2007).…”

“…F. Chen et al, 2006). However, empirical findings supporting a bifactor model necessarily imply revisiting motivation theory, via a process of epistemic iteration (Greene, 2022). Such reconceptualization has already begun for EVT based on the findings of Part et al (2020, 2023), among others.…”

“…Recent STEM education research supporting the utility of using bifactor-exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) measurement models with EVT conceptualizations (Lohbeck et al, 2022;Part et al, 2020Part et al, , 2023 suggests the need to consider refining EVT. However, before embarking on such theory development, it is important test whether such measurement models and their theoretical implications are reproduced in new contexts, with different samples, and across multiple time points (Greene, 2022). In addition, evidence supporting the use of bifactor-ESEM measurement models with EVT indicates a need to test similar measurement models with other motivation conceptualizations (i.e., AGT).…”

Advancing open science and methodological rigor in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology.

“…With the availability of better tools to test dynamic psychological theories, there also exist opportunities for the results of this work to meaningfully inform the revision of prior theories, as well as to develop entirely new and improved theories that provide better predictive and explanatory power (Greene, 2022; Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019) that might, in turn, guide subsequent research and application. Despite the well-known benefits of regular physical activity, the prevalence of inactivity across all sections of society remains frustratingly high, and so the challenge remains to the field as a whole to develop more effective strategies and approaches that can promote both the adoption and maintenance of health-enhancing physical activity.…”