In today’s information landscape, students routinely encounter content that is inaccurate, conflicting, or incomplete. These encounters are shaped by a confluence of personalization algorithms, user behaviors, and media dynamics that structure what information students access and how they interpret it. We address this issue by integrating work from epistemic cognition and multiple document comprehension (MDC) that addresses the sociotechnical and epistemic complexities of digital search and information processing. Whereas MDC provides a foundation for examining integration of conflicting documents, these models have not deeply unpacked how students arrive at such documents. Theories of epistemic cognition, conversely, have advanced understanding of the processes involved in navigating “epistemically unfriendly” environments. We propose a framework that captures the cognitive, metacognitive, and justice-oriented demands of digital search, articulated through dimensions of algorithmic awareness, epistemic reflexivity, integrative sourcing and sensemaking, and justice sensitivity. These dimensions highlight how algorithmic filtering, prior beliefs, search behaviors, and epistemic injustice intersect to shape what information students see, how they make sense of it, and which perspectives they trust. Our aim is to contribute to researchers’ conceptualization of information processing online and ultimately prompt a critical reevaluation of educational practices in response to evolving technological landscapes.

In this paper, we examine the pervasive issue of systemic racism within the field of educational psychology and the limitations of traditional research methodologies in addressing racial inequities. Despite the recent reckoning and public apologies from key psychological associations, there has been a broad lack of urgency and slow progress in addressing racial justice issues from the educational psychology discipline. The field remains overshadowed by quantitative methodologies that often claim objectivity and neutrality, (in)advertently perpetuating color-evasive narratives and failing to adequately address the complex layers and institutions of systemic racism in education. To mitigate and counter these shortcomings, we introduce the application of Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) as one possible framework for reimagining research in educational psychology. The current paper explores the five QuantCrit tenets with the interconnected goals of (a) exposing and challenging the racist underpinnings of traditional quantitative methodologies used in educational psychology and (b) empowering educational psychologists to use data to advance social justice and equity.

This article discusses the tendency for some researchers to privilege positivistic and post-positivist epistemologies and certain methodologies (e.g., experimental and quantitative methods) over others in the name of scientific rigor. We argue that the uncritical privileging of certain research designs over others contributes to scientific bias and potentially scientific racism. There has been a longstanding epistemological debate about which research methodologies produce rigorous research. Those who argue that only research that examines causal links is considered real science neglect the other stages of the scientific method which also consider description, observation, and prediction, in addition to explanation. The focus on causal questions as the epitome of “real” science dismisses earlier stages of science that must first describe, observe, and predict before it can explain phenomena. We discuss less emphasized forms of validity (e.g., statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity), which are equally important to internal validity in addressing scientific rigor. We also discuss how the tendency to conflate statistical analysis procedures with research design works to dismiss rigorous research not focused on causal questions. This is especially problematic for research that examines underrepresented groups and marginalized populations who are typically also hard-to-reach research populations. Finally, we review previous epistemological debates that privileged certain quantitative methods over other quantitative methods and qualitative approaches and offer recommendations for how to combat scientific racism in psychological science.

Revising one’s goal in response to feedback about goal success or failure is a central but poorly understood self-regulatory process. Specifically, a theoretical model that specifies how and how much people revise their goal following goal success or failure is lacking. Therefore, we synthesized empirical studies on goal revision to shed light on the processes and individual differences in goal revision. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and revealed a clear pattern: People raise their goals after success and lower them after failure. Results of a meta-analysis further showed that the discrepancy between goal and performance predicted the strength of upward goal revision after success and downward goal revision after failure (r = .51). Moreover, a narrative summary of previously tested moderators revealed two ways in which moderators affect the direction and strength of goal revision. Moderators affect either the direct link between goal-performance discrepancy and goal revision, or the link between goal-performance discrepancy and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy emerged as a central mediating variable between goal-performance discrepancy and goal revision. Based on these findings, we developed the Triple-A Model (Assessment, Appraisal, Adjustment) of Goal Revision, which allows deriving directional hypotheses about how much people revise their goals after successes and failures.

The amount of time students with learning disabilities (LD) spend in general education classes has steadily increased over the past half century. This article addresses the need to investigate the impact of class-wide instructional approaches for students with and without LD in general education settings. We describe the process of developing and testing two class-wide, inclusive instructional programs that have yielded meaningful impacts on reading outcomes for students with and without disabilities and influenced educational theories. To advance educational psychology research, theory, and practice, we also present recommendations for conducting rigorous intervention research that can improve understanding of the best ways to support the reading development of students with LD in inclusive settings.

In this commentary, I discuss methodological issues relevant to the programs of research outlined in the papers included in this special issue on including students with disabilities in educational psychology theory and research. First, I discuss how qualitative research that includes students with disabilities can offer critical insights into learners and the learning context, and advance theory development relevant to all students. Next, I extend calls made in this special issue on using quantitative approaches to understanding learner variation in relation to intervention effectiveness, and to test logic models that relate active ingredients of interventions to learner outcomes. Finally, I close with reflections on research quality, and how advancing these programs of research will require an understanding of research design limitations.

We examine the role of culture in comprehension. Prominent theories of comprehension conceptualized the outcome of reading as learners’ construction of a cognitive representation of texts. We emphasize that such representation reflects not only texts’ content, but also individuals’ understandings of the real world, as described in texts. We suggest that, thus, individuals should be supported to question and analyze the mental representations that they form; we use the term “culture” to capture such questioning and analysis. Rather than an individual difference factor, we argue for conceptualizing culture as a way of thinking, or as individuals’ reasoning about the commonalities and differences in their and others’ worldviews and the linking of these to underlying values. When such reasoning is engaged in reference to texts, we refer to this as culturalized comprehension; when such reasoning is further engaged to resist or recast the values introduced in texts to generate counternarratives, we refer to this as critical culturalized comprehension. In emphasizing the importance of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension and describing the set of cognitive processes involved, we argue for research in educational psychology to examine how learners may be consciously, reflectively, and critically engaged in using texts to understand their world.

As the articles in this special issue on “Psychological Perspectives on the Effects and Effectiveness of Assessment Feedback” have shown, feedback is a key factor in education. Although there exists a substantial body of research on the topic, it is imperative to continue advancing the field. My aim is to outline five steps to solidify the potential paradigm shift that the feedback field may already be experiencing, while incorporating the insights gleaned from the articles within this special issue. Firstly, there is a need to develop new models that thoroughly explore and operationalize the intricacies of the feedback phenomenon. Secondly, it is essential to conceptualize feedback as a dynamic process and collect data that directly investigates this process. Thirdly, it would be advantageous to leverage insights from the self-regulated learning field, which has made significant strides in advancing measurement methods applicable to feedback research. Fourthly, employing multimodal methods can enrich our comprehension of the multifaceted nature of the feedback process. Lastly, placing the feedback agent at the core of the feedback process, with particular attention to individual differences, is of utmost importance.

When a learner receives feedback, important motivational and emotional processes are triggered that control whether and how the learner reengages in a learning activity and successfully adjusts in response to what the feedback suggests. We aim to highlight how motivation and emotion processes influence feedback effectiveness, and how our theoretical understanding of the feedback process depends on appreciating the affective precursors, concomitants, and consequences of feedback. To query the literature, interrogate theories of academic motivation and emotion, and identify central motivational and emotional factors associated with feedback, we use a five-question framework: What does the feedback mean to me? How do I feel about the feedback? Can I improve from the feedback? Do I want to improve from the feedback? Am I supported by others or by the context in dealing with feedback? A conceptual review of empirically grounded and theory-driven interpretations accompanies each question to inform practice and research.

Extensive debate of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “open science,” and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, transparent reporting, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research syntheses. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases in the decision making and practices of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses.