Search

This study updates and extends prior work on institutional and individual productivity in educational psychology journals ("Cognition and Instruction," "Contemporary Educational Psychology," "Educational Psychologist," "Educational Psychology Review," "Journal of Educational Psychology") from 2015 to 2021. As in previous studies, the University of Maryland, College Park, was the top-producing institution. Several universities (e.g., University of Tübingen) emerged as highly productive compared to previous time periods. Using two approaches to measure individual productivity, we found that Richard Mayer, Ulrich Trautwein, Fred Paas, Patricia Alexander, and Logan Fiorella claimed the top spots. We also identified productive early career scholars and, for some, recognized connections to productive doctoral advisors. Overall, compared to prior years, authors of educational psychology journal articles were increasingly working from non-US institutions and in larger teams (higher mean number of authors per article). A discussion of these trends and future directions for research are included.

Previous studies have investigated the characteristics, influencing factors, and working strategies of highly successful educational psychologists. These studies, however, have focused mainly on male scholars. Consequently, little is known about how successful female educational psychologists go about their work and are so productive. In the present study, we addressed this gap by interviewing five leading female educational psychologists (Patricia Alexander, Carol Dweck, Jacquelynne Eccles, Mareike Kunter, and Tamara van Gog) about factors that have aided their success and about their gender-related experiences. The five female scholars revealed their trademark characteristics, the important people and places that influenced their careers, and their time- and research-management strategies. They also provided unique insights about their experiences and perspectives as women in the field of educational psychology. Findings offer guidance for budding scholars, particularly women.

Today's traditional-aged college students are avid users of mobile technology. Commonly referred to as the Net Generation, today's college students spend several hours each day using their smart phones, iPads, and laptops. Although some scholars initially opined that the Net Generation would grow into technologically savvy digital natives who would leverage their unprecedented access to technology for professional and academic betterment, contemporary research has rejected the digital native myth. Instead, college students frequently use mobile technology for off-task purposes while attending classroom lectures or doing schoolwork outside of class--a phenomenon known as cyber-slacking. This article provides college educators with an overview of the frequency and consequences of cyber-slacking inside and outside the classroom and seven instructional implications for curbing cyber-slacking. Proposed strategies for curbing cyber-slacking include rejecting the digital native myth, adopting and enforcing technology policies, consciousness raising, motivating students to relinquish their devices, incorporating active learning in the classroom, using mobile technology as a teaching tool, teaching students to be self-regulated learners, and motivating students to delay gratification from their mobile devices.

Previous research (Kiewra & Creswell, "Educational Psychology Review" 12(1):135-161, 2000; Patterson-Hazley & Kiewra, "Educational Psychology Review" 25(1):19-45, 2013) has investigated the characteristics and work habits of highly productive educational psychologists. These investigations have focused exclusively on American scholars who were trained and employed at various universities and have ignored international scholars and scholars with a shared academic lineage. The present study sought to fill these gaps by investigating, through qualitative methods, how a cohort of four German educational psychologists (Heinz Mandl, Alexander Renkl, Hans Gruber, and Frank Fischer) with a shared academic background became productive scholars. Interview responses suggested that the German scholars' shared experiences during the early years of their careers shaped their career paths and productivity. Additionally, interviews with each scholar revealed several commonalities (i.e., long and focused research career, trademark characteristic, scholarly influencers, effective time-management practices, and research-management strategies) between this contingent of productive German scholars and their productive American counterparts. Finally, the present study also identified several differences (e.g., educational training, funding opportunities, sabbaticals, administrative responsibilities, and research traditions) between the American and German research environments that influence productivity. Practical implications from this investigation include advice for emerging scholars.