what is the conclusion of educational psychology

What is Educational Psychology?

Definition of Educational Psychology

Educational psychology is a branch of psychology that focuses on how people learn and the best practices to teach them.

This field involves understanding the methods and techniques to optimize learning in various educational settings, ranging from traditional classrooms to online learning environments.

Educational psychologists study the interactions between learning and environment, including social, emotional, and cognitive processes that influence learning outcomes.

Six Key Foci

1. instructional methods.

One of the key areas of focus in educational psychology is the development of instructional methods that enhance learning.

Research shows that tailored instruction based on individual learning styles can significantly impact a student’s ability to absorb and retain information.

For instance, some students learn best through visual means, such as charts and videos, while others might benefit more from hands-on activities or written materials.

Understanding these differences allows educators to design more effective teaching strategies that cater to the diverse needs of their students.

2. Role of Motivation in Learning

Another important aspect of educational psychology is the role of motivation in learning. Motivation can be intrinsic, originating within the student, such as a personal interest in a subject matter, or extrinsic, driven by external rewards like grades or praise.

Educational psychologists study techniques to foster both types of motivation to enhance engagement and educational achievement.

For example, goal-setting, self-assessment, and providing meaningful feedback are strategies that have been proven to increase intrinsic motivation and encourage continuous engagement in learning activities.

Read More: 31 Theories of Motivation

3. Behavior Management

Behavior management in the classroom is also a critical area of study within educational psychology.

Effective behavior management strategies help create a supportive learning environment that minimizes disruptions and promotes respectful and constructive interactions among students.

Techniques such as positive reinforcement, clear classroom rules, and conflict resolution are essential tools for teachers to maintain order and respect in the classroom.

4. Social and Emotional Learning

Educational psychologists also explore the impact of emotional and social factors on learning.

Emotional well-being is crucial for cognitive development and learning. Students who experience emotional difficulties may find it hard to concentrate and stay motivated.

Therefore, providing emotional support through counseling, peer mentoring, and other therapeutic interventions can be vital in helping students overcome personal challenges that affect their learning.

5. Examining Cognitive Development (Cognitive Psychology)

Cognitive development theories are central to educational psychology. These theories guide understanding of how thinking processes evolve and how these processes influence learning.

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, for example, provides insights into how children perceive the world at different stages of their development and how these perceptions influence their learning process.

According to Piaget, children move through four stages of cognitive development, each characterized by changes in understanding and abilities.

Teachers can use this knowledge to create age-appropriate learning experiences that align with the cognitive abilities of their students.

Chart: Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development

6. Assessment and Evaluation of Learning

Lastly, educational psychology pays close attention to assessments and evaluations. These tools are not only used to measure students’ knowledge and skills but also to inform ongoing instructional strategies.

Effective assessment helps identify areas where students are struggling and where they excel, allowing for targeted interventions that support learning and growth.

Moreover, assessments can be used to evaluate the efficacy of educational programs and interventions, providing feedback that can lead to curriculum improvements and enhanced teaching methods.

Examples of Educational Psychology

• Cognitive Development : Observing how students’ cognitive abilities affect their learning to adapt teaching methods. Educational psychologists study developmental stages to optimize how content is delivered based on age and cognitive readiness.
• Behaviorism : Using reward systems in classrooms to reinforce desirable behavior and learning outcomes. This stems from behaviorist theories in educational psychology that emphasize the use of positive reinforcement to shape behavior.
• Assessment : Creating and analyzing tests to measure student learning and performance. Educational psychologists apply theories of measurement and assessment to ensure that tests are valid and reliable reflections of what students have learned.
• Goal Setting Theory : Assisting students in setting specific educational goals, which helps increase their motivation and performance. Educational psychologists use goal-setting theory to teach students how to effectively set and pursue goals, enhancing their academic achievement.
• Classroom Management : Implementing strategies for managing classroom behavior, which involves understanding group dynamics and individual behaviors. Educational psychologists study these dynamics to develop techniques that maintain a productive learning environment.
• Technology in Education : Integrating digital tools and resources to enhance learning. Educational psychologists explore how technological tools can support various learning styles and improve educational outcomes.
• Emotional and Social Learning : Understanding the impact of emotions and social interactions on learning. Educational psychologists apply theories of emotional intelligence and social learning to help students develop these essential skills for academic and personal success.

Educational psychology provides critical insights that help shape effective teaching and learning practices. By understanding the various factors that influence learning, from cognitive development to emotional support, educational psychologists play a vital role in enhancing educational experiences and outcomes. This field continues to evolve, incorporating new research findings to better understand and respond to the educational needs of students in an ever-changing world.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is IQ? (Intelligence Quotient)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is Educational Psychology? – A Deep Dive

Psychology is a crucial discipline for understanding the world. It gives us frameworks to respond to life’s various needs. Educational psychology is one such branch of psychology that is implemented to help people learn more effectively. This article will seek to answer the question “What is educational psychology?” and explore the various perspectives on the field.

Table of Contents

What is educational psychology, what is educational psychology according to behaviorism, what is educational psychology according to cognitivism, what is educational psychology according to constructivism, what is educational psychology according to social learning theorists, infographic, knowledge check, frequently asked questions, what is educational psychology, what is the aim of educational psychology, what are the various perspectives of educational psychology.

Educational psychology is a field concerned with understanding how people learn. This understanding of learning is then implemented to develop effective learning experiences and materials.

Educational psychology explores and studies the following:

• Learning theories
• Motivational theories
• Instructional processes
• Teaching strategies
• Assessment strategies
• Psychometrics
• Educational technology and eLearning
• Educational policies

Additionally, educational psychology studies the impact and relationship of emotions and social influences with learning.

Ditch the Dull, Embrace the Thrill of Custom eLearning

Ignite engagement and empower your workforce with custom eLearning that:

- Tailors to your specific needs & goals – personalized learning, targeted impact.

- Boosts knowledge retention with engaging content – interactive, memorable experiences.

- Fits seamlessly into any learning environment – accessible, flexible, learner-centered.

Educational psychology does not exist in a vacuum, and instead draws from other focus areas within psychology to supplement its findings, majorly developmental psychology, behavioral psychology, and cognitive psychology.

The work of someone trained in educational psychology includes:

• Developing learning interventions that cater to learners’ learning needs
• Develop learning programs that accommodate learner groups with specific needs (for e.g., learning diabilities)
• Analyze and improve learning interventions
• Research how people learn in different settings
• Removing learning barriers
• Assess learners’ aptitude, ability, and performance within a program
• Research the impact of environment, culture, genetics, etc., on learning

Educational psychologists can work in schools, higher-education institutions, research institutions, government institutions, and the corporate sector.

There are many different perspectives and theories about learning in educational psychology. Let us take a look at some of the most prominent ones.

Behaviorism views learning as observable changes in behaviors. In behaviorism, the internal cognitive and emotional processes involved in learning are de-emphasized, and learning through changes in the external environment is emphasized.

See How Learning Everest Can Increase Your Training ROI

• Top-notch Quality – get the most effective courses designed by us.
• Competitive Cost – yet at the most competitive cost.
• Superfast Delivery – that too faster than your desired delivery timelines.

Behaviorism holds that learning takes place through a system of rewards (reinforcements) and punishments. Pairing rewards with desired behavioral outcomes leads to successful learning, known as conditioning . Similarly, pairing unwanted behaviors with negative stimuli or punishment, decreases the frequency of undesired behaviors.

For example, awarding a point for a correct response on a quiz is a reward. On the other hand, deducting a point for an incorrect response on a quiz is a punishment, so to speak.

The behaviorist approach to education holds that anything can be taught with enough repetitions and reinforcement. As a result, it puts lesser emphasis on biological, cognitive, and emotional barriers.

There are two main ways learning or conditioning occurs in behaviorism:

• Classical conditioning – a form of learning where certain behavioral responses are naturally reinforced by environmental stimuli.
• Operant conditioning – a form of learning where behaviors are reinforced through deliberate rewards.

Classical conditioning is responsible for learning that occurs naturally, whereas operant conditioning is more often utilized in training and education.

Here are the ways in which behaviorist principles are applied in educational psychology:

• Breaking down larger learning goals into smaller components
• Establishing learning objectives
• Reinforcing learning through feedback, points, progression, etc.

In contrast to behaviorism, cognitivism is an approach that sees learning as a change in an individual’s understanding of information.

According to cognitivism, humans store information mentally in schemas, that are mental representations of concepts.

Successful learning leads to changes in existing schemas or forms new schema. Behavioral change , thus, occurs as a result of a change in an individual’s mental models.

Cognitivism emphasizes mental processes in learning, such as:

• Logic and reasoning
• Information processing
• Decision-making
• Problem-solving

Learners use these mental processes to make sense of new information and acquire knowledge.

Some of the ways in which cognitivism is applied in learning are:

• Emphasizing attention and motivation in the learning process
• Providing learners with high-quality learning materials for effectively transmitting knowledge
• Acknowledging the role of an expert in effectively transmitting knowledge, for example, a professor giving a lecture
• Promoting teaching experiences to facilitate discovery of knowledge and the meaning of information

As the name suggests, the constructivist approach views learning as a subjective construction of meaning through information gathered. In constructivism, there is an interplay between new information and the learners’ existing understanding of the world, which evolves to assimilate or accommodate the new information.

Assimilation occurs when new information is adopted into an existing framework an individual has, thereby broadening that framework. For example, looking at a creature with wings and a beak and immediately registering it as a bird.

Accommodation occurs when new information leads to the formation of new frameworks or changes one’s understanding of an existing framework. For example, changing one’s understanding of mammals upon learning that whales and dolphins are mammals and not fish.

In constructivism, the role of an instructor is not to reinforce or transmit knowledge. Instead, they facilitate learners to develop their own understanding of the information presented to them.

In constructivism, learners’ interactions with media and society shape how they interpret the information they receive. This is especially relevant in eLearning which uses multimodal learning to give learners multiple avenues to explore information.

Some other ways in which constructivism is implemented in the learning process include:

• Asking reflection questions
• Letting students construct their own questions
• Implementing activities that require problem solving
• Accepting multiple interpretations of concepts and information in discussions

Social learning emerged as a response to behaviorism. Social learning holds that not all learning occurs as a result of direct, external reinforcement. Instead, learning can occur by observing others’ behaviors and their consequences. This is known as observational learning or vicarious conditioning . The object(s) of observation (i.e., other individuals) serve as a model for behavior which learners can observe and imitate.

While a lot of social learning occurs organically, it can easily be applied to deliberate learning scenarios.

In a learning environment , models can be presented to learners in many different ways:

• A live model such as an instructor who demonstrates a behavior
• Symbolic models such as fictional characters
• Verbal instructional modelling where behaviors are described verbally, this can include

Social learning also emphasizes a learner’s mental state in the process of learning. Attention and motivation are necessary prerequisites to learning, without which information cannot be acquired. Attention leads to the retention of information. Only retained information can be reproduced by the learner in an appropriate circumstance. Motivators like rewards and punishments are crucial determinants of whether a behavior is reproduced or not.

Some applications of social learning include:

• Scenario-based learning
• Live or video-based demonstrations
• Teaching through stories and narratives

In practice, educational psychology does not function based on a single perspective. Instead, practitioners use a mix of different theories to deliver instruction. This mix of strategies depends on learning needs , learner characteristics, mode of instruction, budget, resources available, etc. Educational psychologists use their expertise in learning to develop effective learning experiences from start to finish. Educational psychology is not only applied in schools and higher education institutions, but in workplaces, training institutes, public education, consumer education, etc.

Perspectives in Educational Psychology

• All of the above
• Classical conditioning
• Vicarious conditioning
• Operant conditioning
• Assimilation
• Accommodation
• None of the above

The aim of educational psychology is to research learning and create effective learning experiences.

Some major perspectives in educational psychology are:

• Cognitivism
• Constructivism
• Social learning theory

Live Online Certification Trainings

Our Clients Our Work

How Can We Help You

• Top-notch Quality – get the most effective courses designed by us.
• Competitive Cost – yet at the most competitive cost.
• Superfast Delivery – that too faster than your desired delivery timelines.

The Study of Educational Psychology

History of Educational Psychology

Early educational psychologists.

Educational psychology is a fairly new and growing field of study. While philosophers dating back to the time of Aristotle and Plato contemplated development, learning, education, and the relationship between teacher and learner educational psychology was not considered a specific practice. It was unknown that everyday teaching and learning in which individuals had to think about individual differences, assessment, development, the nature of a subject being taught, problem-solving, and transfer of learning was the beginning of the field of educational psychology. These topics are important to education and, as a result, they are important in understanding human cognition, learning, and social perception (Berliner, 1993). 

Johann Herbart

• Review material that has already been learned by the student
• Prepare the student for new material by giving them an overview of what they are learning next
• Present the new material
• Relate the new material to the old material that has already been learned
• Show how the student can apply the new material and show the material they will learn next

The period of 1890–1920 is considered the golden era of educational psychology where aspirations of the new discipline rested on the application of the scientific methods of observation and experimentation to educational problems. From 1840 to 1920, 37 million people immigrated to the United States.  This created an expansion of elementary schools and secondary schools. The increase in immigration also provided educational psychologists the opportunity to use intelligence testing to screen immigrants at Ellis Island.   At the end of the 19th century, there were three major figures that distinguished themselves in the emerging field of educational psychology: William James, G. Stanley Hall, and John Dewey (Berliner, 1993). 

William James 

 William James  (1842–1910)   is the father of psychology in America but he also made contributions to educational psychology. In his famous series of lectures  Talks to Teachers on Psychology , published in 1899, James defines education as “the organization of acquired habits of conduct and tendencies to behavior”.  He states that teachers should “train the pupil to behavior”  so that he fits into the social and physical world. Teachers should also realize the importance of habit and instinct. They should present information that is clear and interesting and relate this new information and material to things the student already knows about.  He also addresses important issues such as attention, memory, and association of ideas (James, 1983).

Alfred Bin et

Alfred Binet (1857-1911) published  Mental Fatigue  in 1898, in which he attempted to apply the experimental method to educational psychology.  In this experimental method, he advocated for two types of experiments, experiments done in the lab, and experiments done in the classroom. In 1904 he was appointed the Minister of Public Education. This is when he began to look for a way to distinguish children with developmental disabilities.  Binet strongly supported special education programs because he believed that “abnormality” could be cured.  The Binet-Simon test was the first intelligence test and was the first to distinguish between “normal children” and those with developmental disabilities.  Binet believed that it was important to study individual differences between age groups and children of the same age.  He also believed that it was important for teachers to take into account individual students’ strengths and also the needs of the classroom as a whole when teaching and creating a good learning environment.  He also believed that it was important to train teachers in observation so that they would be able to see individual differences among children and adjust the curriculum to the students.  Binet also emphasized that the practice of material was important. The test became known as the Stanford-Binet and was one of the most widely used tests of intelligence (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003).

Edward Thorndike

“If, by a miracle of mechanical ingenuity, a book could be so arranged that only to him who had done what was directed on page one would page two become visible, and so on, much that now requires personal instruction could be managed by print” (Thorndike, 1912).

“The material furnished by way of information should be relevant to a question that is vital in the student’s own experience” (Dewey, 1910).

Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget (1896-1980) is considered one of the most influential psychologists of the twentieth century, and his stage theory of cognitive development revolutionized our view of children’s thinking and learning. His work inspired more research than any other theorist, and many of his concepts are still foundational to developmental psychology. His interest lay in children’s knowledge, their thinking, and the qualitative differences in their thinking as it develops. Although he called his field “genetic epistemology,” stressing the role of biological determinism, he also assigned great importance to experience. In his view, children “construct” their knowledge through processes of “assimilation,” in which they evaluate and try to understand new information, based on their existing knowledge of the world, and “accommodation,” in which they expand and modify their cognitive structures based on new experiences.

Contemporary Educational Psychologists

The number of people receiving a high school and college education increased dramatically from 1920 to 1960. Because very few jobs were available to teens coming out of eighth grade, there was an increase in high school attendance in the 1930s (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). The progressive movement in the United States took off at this time and led to the idea of progressive education. John Flanagan, an educational psychologist, developed tests for combat trainees and instructions in combat training. In 1954, the work of Kenneth Clark and his wife on the effects of segregation on black and white children was influential in the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (Hergenhahn, 2009). From the 1960s to the present day, educational psychology has switched from a behaviorist perspective to a more cognitive-based perspective because of the influence and development of cognitive psychology at this time (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003).

Jerome Bruner

Benjamin Bloom

Nathaniel Gage

Candela Citations

• Educational Psychology. Provided by : Wikipedia. Project : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_psychology. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Schemas, assimilation, and accommodation. Provided by : Khan Academy . Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/xoAUMmZ0pzc. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of Johann Herbart. Provided by : Wikipedia. Retrieved from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Herbart#/media/File:Johann_F_Herbart.jpg. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Image of Alfred Binet. Provided by : Wikipedia. Retrieved from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet#/media/File:Alfred_Binet.jpg. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Image of Edward Thorndike. Provided by : Wikipedia. Retrieved from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Thorndike#/media/File:PSM_V80_D211_Edward_Lee_Thorndike.png. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Image of John Dewey. Provided by : Wikipedia. Retrieved from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey#/media/File:John_Dewey_cph.3a51565.jpg. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Image of Jean Piaget. Provided by : Wikipedia. Retrieved from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#/media/File:Jean_Piaget_in_Ann_Arbor.png. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Image of Benjamin Bloom. Provided by : Wikipedia. Retrieved from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Bloom#/media/File:Benjamin_Bloom_photo.jpg. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• No products in the cart.

Home   >   blogs   >   Unlocking Educational Psychology’s Role

Unlocking Educational Psychology’s Role

February 5,2024

• Educational Psychology

Educational Psychology's Role  

The cornerstone of learning and development .

Indeed, the importance of educational psychology in shaping the future of learning cannot be overstated. At its core, this discipline offers invaluable insights into how individuals acquire knowledge and skills, thereby informing teaching strategies that cater to diverse learning needs. Furthermore, it plays a pivotal role in identifying and addressing learning difficulties, ensuring that education is accessible and effective for all students. 

Moreover, educational psychology extends its benefits beyond the classroom, significantly influencing society. By fostering a deeper understanding of developmental stages and learning styles, it empowers educators to craft learning environments that nurture not only academic success but also social and emotional growth. This holistic approach to education cultivates well-rounded individuals who are equipped to contribute positively to their communities. 

The role of educational psychology in education is evident in its contribution to curriculum design and assessment methods. Through evidence-based research, educational psychologists develop and refine educational materials and teaching strategies, ensuring they meet the evolving needs of students. This dynamic process underscores the discipline's commitment to enhancing educational quality and effectiveness. 

Nurturing Inclusive Educational Environments 

The impact of educational psychological research in practice is particularly notable in the creation of inclusive educational settings. By understanding the unique challenges faced by learners with special needs, educational psychologists guide the development of tailored interventions. These strategies not only support individual learning objectives but also promote an inclusive culture that values diversity and fosters a sense of belonging among all students. 

The importance of educational psychology is highlighted in its approach to student motivation and engagement. By unraveling the complex factors that influence motivation, educational psychologists provide teachers with strategies to engage students actively in their learning journey. This focus on motivation is crucial, as it directly affects learning outcomes and students' overall educational experience. 

In addition, the discipline's emphasis on emotional and psychological well-being is instrumental in addressing issues such as anxiety and stress among students. By equipping educators with strategies to create supportive and empathetic learning environments, educational psychology contributes to the overall well-being of students, enhancing their ability to learn and thrive. 

Advancing Through Research 

The importance of research in educational psychology cannot be understated. It is through rigorous investigation that the field continues to evolve, shedding light on new teaching methodologies, learning technologies, and psychological interventions that can enhance educational outcomes. This commitment to research ensures that educational psychology remains responsive to the changing landscape of education, adapting to new challenges and opportunities. 

Research in educational psychology plays a crucial role in debunking myths and challenging outdated educational practices. By grounding educational theories in empirical evidence, the field promotes practices that are proven to be effective, thereby enhancing the quality of education provided to learners. 

Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness through Educational Psychology 

In the journey to elevate educational standards, the role of educational psychology in education emerges as a beacon guiding the professional development of teachers . By arming educators with a deep understanding of cognitive processes and learning theories, this field equips them to tailor their teaching methods to meet the diverse needs of their students. Moreover, educational psychology offers strategies for classroom management, fostering an environment conducive to learning for all. 

Furthermore, the importance of educational psychology shines through in its application to educational technology. As digital tools become increasingly integral to teaching and learning, understanding how students interact with these technologies is crucial. Educational psychologists delve into the cognitive and emotional aspects of learning with technology, ensuring that digital tools enhance rather than hinder the learning experience. 

The impact of educational psychological research in practice is evident in the field's contributions to special education. By developing and applying research-based interventions, educational psychologists ensure that students with learning disabilities receive the support they need to succeed academically. This commitment to inclusivity underscores the discipline's role in promoting equity in education. 

Fostering Resilience and Mental Well-being in Students 

The importance of educational psychology extends to its focus on students' mental health and resilience. In an era where young people face numerous pressures, from academic stress to social challenges, educational psychology provides insights into fostering resilience. By integrating strategies that promote mental well-being into the curriculum, educators can help students develop coping mechanisms that will serve them well beyond the classroom. 

The role of educational psychology in education is pivotal in addressing the emotional aspects of learning. Understanding the emotional barriers to learning, such as anxiety and lack of confidence, allows educators to create supportive environments that encourage students to embrace challenges and engage in the learning process wholeheartedly. 

Additionally, the discipline's focus on social-emotional learning highlights the importance of educational psychology. By teaching students essential skills such as empathy, self-awareness, and effective communication, educational psychology contributes to the development of emotionally intelligent individuals who can navigate the complexities of interpersonal relationships and societal expectations. 

Navigating the Future of Education 

As we look to the future, the importance of research in educational psychology becomes increasingly apparent. With the educational landscape constantly evolving, ongoing research is essential to keep pace with emerging challenges and opportunities. From understanding the implications of artificial intelligence in education to exploring the potential of personalized learning, educational psychology research drives innovation and ensures that educational practices are grounded in scientific evidence. 

Moreover, the impact of educational psychological research in practice is critical in shaping policies and practices that affect education at all levels. By providing empirical evidence on what works in education, educational psychologists influence decision-making processes, ensuring that policies are informed by solid research rather than anecdotal evidence or passing trends. 

Cultivating a Culture of Lifelong Learning 

The importance of educational psychology is profoundly reflected in its contribution to lifelong learning. By understanding how learning occurs throughout life, educational psychologists advocate for strategies that encourage continuous education beyond formal schooling. This perspective helps individuals adapt to the rapidly changing demands of the workforce and society, emphasizing the value of adaptability and continuous personal development. 

Moreover, the role of educational psychology in education is critical in the context of adult education. Adults returning to education face unique challenges, and educational psychology provides insights into adult learning theories that can make this transition more effective and fulfilling. By applying these principles, educators can create more engaging and relevant learning experiences for adult learners, fostering a culture where education is a continuous journey rather than a destination. 

Additionally, the importance of educational psychology in society extends to its role in community education and outreach programs. Educational psychologists work to design programs that address the educational needs of diverse communities, ensuring that learning opportunities are accessible to all, regardless of age, background, or circumstance. This inclusive approach not only enriches individual lives but also strengthens communities by promoting knowledge, skills, and social cohesion. 

Embracing Diversity and Equity in Education 

The impact of educational psychological research in practice is particularly significant in promoting diversity and equity in educational settings. By examining how factors such as culture, language, and socio-economic status affect learning, educational psychologists develop strategies to mitigate educational disparities. This research informs practices that ensure all students have the support they need to succeed, highlighting the discipline's commitment to social justice in education. 

Furthermore, the importance of educational psychology is evident in its efforts to dismantle barriers to education for marginalized groups. Through advocacy and research, educational psychologists work to change policies and practices that perpetuate inequality, championing a more inclusive and equitable education system. 

In addition, educational psychology's focus on multicultural education enriches learning environments by incorporating diverse perspectives and experiences. This approach not only enhances learning for students from all backgrounds but also prepares students to thrive in a globalized world, fostering mutual respect and understanding among diverse populations. 

Leveraging Technology for Enhanced Learning 

In an era dominated by digital innovation, the importance of research in educational psychology is crucial in understanding the implications of technology in education. Educational psychologists explore how digital tools can be used to enhance learning, examining the effects of multimedia, virtual reality, and online learning platforms on cognitive processes and educational outcomes. 

The role of educational psychology in education in the digital age involves guiding the ethical and effective use of technology in the classroom. By balancing technological opportunities with potential drawbacks, educational psychologists help educators integrate digital tools in ways that enrich learning without compromising students' well-being or privacy. 

The impact of educational psychological research in practice is seen in the development of adaptive learning technologies. These systems use data to personalize learning experiences, adjusting to individual learners' needs and pace. This personalized approach, informed by educational psychology, has the potential to revolutionize education by making learning more engaging, efficient, and effective for students of all ages and backgrounds. 

Envisioning the Future of Educational Psychology 

As we look towards the future, the importance of educational psychology in shaping next-generation education is both exciting and paramount. By continuously exploring how learning occurs across different stages of life and within various social contexts, educational psychology remains at the forefront of educational innovation. This dynamic field adapts to the evolving educational landscape, ensuring that teaching methods stay relevant, engaging, and effective for diverse learner populations. 

The importance of research in educational psychology is critical in navigating the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age. As technology becomes increasingly integrated into education, research in educational psychology will guide the development of digital learning tools that are pedagogically sound and aligned with human cognitive processes. This research ensures that technology enhances rather than detracts from the learning experience, facilitating a harmonious blend of traditional and digital educational practices. 

The role of educational psychology in education is expanding to encompass global challenges such as sustainability, global citizenship, and digital literacy. By addressing these topics within the educational curriculum, educational psychology contributes to the development of informed, responsible, and proactive global citizens. This broader perspective prepares students not only for personal success but also for active participation in addressing global issues. 

Empowering Change Through Educational Psychology 

The impact of educational psychological research in practice cannot be overstated. As educational psychologists uncover new insights into human learning and development, these findings translate into practical applications that transform educational environments. From individual classrooms to entire educational systems, the principles of educational psychology inform policies, curricula, and teaching practices that cater to the holistic development of learners. 

Furthermore, the importance of educational psychology in society extends to its role in fostering inclusive education. By advocating for educational practices that accommodate diversity in all its forms, educational psychology promotes a more equitable and just educational landscape. This commitment to inclusivity ensures that every student, regardless of background, ability, or learning style, has access to quality education and the opportunity to reach their full potential. 

The discipline's focus on lifelong learning underscores the importance of educational psychology. In a world where change is the only constant, fostering a love for learning and an ability to adapt is crucial. Educational psychology supports the development of these competencies, empowering individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern world with confidence and resilience. 

Conclusion: Unlocking the Full Potential of Education 

In conclusion, the importance of educational psychology in unlocking the full potential of education cannot be understated. Through its comprehensive understanding of how individuals learn and develop, educational psychology provides the foundation for educational practices that are innovative, inclusive, and effective. As we reflect on the insights gained from this exploration, it is clear that educational psychology holds the key to addressing current and future educational challenges. 

The role of educational psychology in education is multifaceted, extending from the micro-level of individual learning processes to the macro-level of global educational trends. By embracing the principles of educational psychology, educators, policymakers, and stakeholders can create learning environments that not only impart knowledge but also foster critical thinking, creativity, and emotional intelligence. 

As we move forward, the importance of research in educational psychology will continue to drive progress in education, ensuring that teaching methods and educational policies are grounded in empirical evidence. This commitment to evidence-based practice is essential for the continuous improvement of education, ensuring that it evolves to meet the needs of future generations. 

In essence, educational psychology serves as a beacon, guiding the way towards a more enlightened, inclusive, and dynamic educational future. By harnessing the power of this discipline, we can unlock the full potential of education, transforming it into a force that not only educates but also empowers individuals and societies alike. 

Recently Added

May 2, 2024

Murdoch Engagement Shock: Tabloid Journalism Expose!

Flag colour meanings revealed, are fitness trackers really accurate.

• Abnormal psychology
• Acupuncture
• Air Cabin Crew
• Aircrafts And Aerospace
• Anatomy And Physiology
• Animal Care
• animal communication
• Anthropology
• Anxiety management
• Aromatherapy
• Art Therapy
• Artificial Intelligence
• Arts And Humanities
• Beauty Therapy
• Birth Doula
• Body Language
• Borderline Personality Disorder
• Brand Building
• British Politics
• Business and Accounting
• Business Law
• Child Psychology
• Classic Vehicle Restoration
• Classroom Behavior Management
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
• Complementary Health
• Confidence Building
• Conflict Resolution
• Consumer Behaviour
• Counselling And Psychology
• Couples Therapy
• Craniosacral Therapy
• Criminology
• decision making
• Decontamination And Sterile Services
• Dental Practice
• Digital Forensics
• Digital Photography
• distance education
• Dog Training
• Dream Analysis
• Ear Candling
• Emotional Freedom Technique
• English Literature
• Environment And Conservation
• Ethical Hacking
• Feature Writing
• Forensic Science And Profiling
• Fundraising
• Gardening And Horticulture
• Gestalt Therapy
• Grief Counselling
• Health And Safety
• Health And Therapies
• Healthy ageing
• Hobbies And Lifestyle
• Human Resource
• Hypnotherapy
• Interrogations And Confessions Psychology
• Library And Information Science
• Maritime Law And Shipping Contracts
• Medical Secretary
• Medicine And Science
• Mental Health
• Microbiology
• mind mapping
• Motorsport Engineering
• Mushroom Growing
• Nail Technician
• Negotiation Skills
• Novel Writing
• Nutrition And Diet
• Pain Management
• Property investment
• Quality Control and Assurance
• Relationship Psychology
• Restorative Justice
• Safeguarding
• Schizophrenia
• Social Care
• Sport And Fitness
• sports nutrition
• Sports Psychology
• Success Stories
• Teaching Assistant
• Time Management
• Uncategorized
• Universe And Space
• Vexillology
• Wedding Planner and Events Management

Do you want to join an online course that will better your career prospects?

Give a new dimension to your personal life.

This website uses cookies. Learn more

Educational Psychology's Role in Learning: Insights & Implications

 · Create Courses

What is educational psychology?

Educational psychology’s role in learning, educational psychology subject areas, what do psychologists in education do, build your career with graphy and monetize your skills.

In this blog, we’ll give you a tour of educational psychology, including its role in learning.

The educational system of today is very complicated. No one learning strategy is effective for everybody. Because of this, educational psychology/psychologists place a strong emphasis on identifying and researching different learning strategies in order to comprehend how individuals assimilate and retain new information.

Launch an online course GOT YOUR CONTENT READY? GRAPHY IS ALL YOU NEED TO GET STARTED!

Educational psychologists use human development concepts to better understand student learning and improve the teaching process. The interaction they have with instructors and students in a classroom context is a significant component of their employment, but it is not the sole aspect. Learning is a continuous process. People learn outside of the classroom as well, such as at work, in social settings, and even when performing routine duties like housework or errands.

Let’s first understand the meaning of educational psychology.

Table of Contents

The research on how students learn, encompassing teaching strategies, learning processes, and individual learning characteristics, is known as educational psychology. Understanding how people acquire knowledge and preserve it is the aim.

In addition to the social, emotional, and cognitive activities that are necessary in learning throughout a lifetime, this area of psychology also examines the learning processes that take place in early childhood and adolescence.

Developmental psychology, behavioral psychology, and cognitive psychology are some of the other fields that are included in the area of educational psychology.

The field of educational psychology has many applications. Even so, let’s examine its unique scope with regard to education in more detail:

The growth of the learner

The educational psychologist makes an effort to comprehend the learner’s innate characteristics, past and present experiences, and behavior in various contexts. With the aid of these insights, they are able to create learning plans that assist the learner’s overall development.

Effective educational experiences include

The goal of educational psychology is to provide engaging and effective learning environments. It assists in determining which exposures are necessary at what phase of a learner’s development so that they pick up the right ideas at the right age.

Learning process development

Based on the traits and abilities of the individual, educational psychologists perform a significant role in the development of novel learning processes. This can involve developing new strategies for memorization, logic, thought, perception, and problem-solving.

Outside environment

  In addition to the individual’s traits, the external environment also has an impact on learning results. Their ability to learn is influenced by a variety of elements, including:

• The learning environment in the classroom, 
• Team dynamics, 
• Communication abilities, and 
• The sharing of knowledge. 

The student can understand and perform to the highest of their capabilities if given an appropriate environment. Educational psychology is essential in order to create this beneficial environment for learning.

Evolution of a personality

From a very young age, educational psychology can influence a child’s personality development. The child’s total development is aided by appropriate teaching methods and a setting in the classroom that is founded on psychological ideas.

Good mental health

The world has grown to be aggressive and demanding. We neglect our mental health in an effort to stay awake, which causes us to feel unhappy or exhausted. The terrible fact is that this is now a reality for today’s schoolchildren. Educational psychologists can help by offering appropriate direction and straightforward learning methods. This also applies to the workplace, where individuals may require counseling to handle difficulties.

Adapting to the evolving educational landscape

Instructional methods used in schools are also evolving. The conventional teaching structure is quickly being replaced by smart classrooms and online learning. To adjust to these shifts, research on novel teaching and learning approaches is required. Educational psychology examines technology’s potential to improve education.

Creating a shifting curriculum

Educational psychology aids in redesigning the curriculum for the classroom and choosing the best ways to impart knowledge to students. Today’s learning materials can be created in a variety of ways, including:

• Audio, 
• Video, 
• Quizzes, 
• Presentations, 
• Case studies, etc.

In order to make learning effective, educational psychology looks for the most effective mix of these possibilities.

Revamping teaching for students with special needs

Psychology supports the development of innovative teaching strategies for students with special needs.

The psychologists go deep into comprehending the learning process, from the resources teachers employ to the unique requirements of children. The following are some of the areas of study in educational psychology:

• e-learning technologies examine the educational benefits of various forms of technology for learners
• Designing lessons: creating educational content that works
• Specialized instruction assists kids who might require particular training.
• Development of the curriculum Coursework should be designed to optimize learning.
• Learning inside an organization means studying how individuals learn in workplaces and other organizational contexts.
• Gifted students: assisting students who have been labeled as talented.

Educational psychologists strive to comprehend how people learn in various environments, such as classrooms, workplaces, or workshops, in order to improve the ways in which information is conveyed. They aid people in understanding topics in a more straightforward way.

Additionally, educational psychologists look for solutions to issues like:

• How does culture affect the learning process?
• Does being older make it harder to pick up new skills? 
• How does online learning differ from traditional classroom instruction?

They might collaborate with educators and parents to help kids learn better, or they can work as researchers or consultants at academic institutions, governmental agencies, and commercial enterprises. Educational psychology covers a lot of ground. This will inevitably expand as more people and organizations become aware of its advantages.

In conclusion, educational psychology’s main focus is on comprehending learning behavior. It has made a huge improvement to the educational system. It also takes into account everyone who is a part of the learning process. Therefore, educational psychology helps children grow up to be responsible, intelligent individuals, which in turn promotes a productive society.

If you desire to establish yourself as an educational psychologist or a teacher, then nothing is better than Graphy. Graphy is the 40000+ creators’ choice. It’s the one-stop solution for people who want to build and monetize their skills and expertise. 

Graphy is an online course hosting platform that lets you create, market, and sell your content/course/digital product through your own branded website and mobile app.

There are countless features in Graphy , but a few are listed below:

So don’t stop yourself from achieving your dreams. Sign up and grow 10x more on Graphy

Course platform

online course

create your online course

educational psychology

psychologists

Top creators use Graphy to sell courses and memberships

Join 100K+ creators who have launched their online knowledge business using Graphy

You may also want to read

Top 7 Christmas Marketing Strategies to Boost Sales

9 Telegram Bots Every Telegram Channel Owner Must Have (2024 Updated)

How To Create a Paid Telegram Channel In 2024 (Updated)?

Psych Times

• Relationships
• Mental Health

What Is Educational Psychology and Why Is It Important

Educational psychology can be summed up as the set of methods and strategies that strive for an improvement of how education is perceived by teachers, parents, and students. The purpose is to offer help and solutions that work as one creates certain educational experiences, adjusts existing learning methods, and keeps the learners inspired. The pandemic times and online learning have helped to set new objectives by addressing limitations and explaining what could be done and how exactly. It is the essence of educational psychology – to suggest, analyze and achieve educational aims in the most efficient way. 

Why is Educational Psychology Important?

Before exploring the benefits and the importance of educational psychology, one must realize that each student is an individual who may not be able to adjust to the common identifier. We all understand things differently and may not be able to follow the same instructions. This is where educational psychology enters the equation by addressing the best ways an educator can help a student learn and understand the concepts and overcome personal challenges, fears, and apprehensions. 

Educational Psychology Explores How Students Learn

It often involves compare-and-contrast methods as an individual is compared to the rest of the group or two bright students are compared to identify the differences. It helps educators to see what might require an urgent change or what methods have proved themselves as efficient. Such a method requires analytical work and time to identify the sample group and take relevant notes that make the research balanced and less partial. 

Remember the difficulties that may occur while teaching ESL students. Sometimes they may not properly garb the idea of the task or complete it incorrectly. In case any teacher needs help with the translation of the curriculum into another language, it is wise to get professional translation help from services like TheWordPoint . An expert translator will translate any educational materials you need and will save you from miscommunication with your ESL students. It is also a great idea to hire a translator permanently for some school needs. You can discuss this idea with a head teacher.

It Offers Introspection or Self-Observation Methods

This method is mostly aimed at educators and the parents of the students that require specific learning assistance (think autistic or special needs learners), yet more and more learners turn to reflective writing and special journals to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Starting with an observation task may seem a bit challenging at first, which is why many students choose to seek online help as they overcome various learning difficulties. The psychological effect of such an action is easy to explain, as students eliminate the factor of stress and of being identified as they ask for help. 

Clinical Psychology Aspect

Also known as the “case study analysis”, this branch of educational psychology focuses on the mental health of students. It has been especially important during times of social isolation and online learning when most students had confidence-related challenges as they did not feel comfortable when learning at home. The educators also relate here if one takes a look at the technical gap or inability to work with the latest technology. Clinical psychology in education also addresses exam stress issues or college depression cases, among other things. The purpose here is to identify the reasons and explain why the fears and anxiety take place. 

New Development Methods and Observations

Flexibility is one of the most important elements of modern educational psychology. While it studies the behavioral patterns of a student, it also helps to identify and develop new learning methods that can help to inspire. It is especially relevant when one is dealing with the younger learners or first-year college students, who are still used to the teacher’s control and the strict school guidelines. As a rule, it still includes observation and analysis of the changes, since developmental psychology must be approached in retrospect or through the lens of prognosis. 

Experimental Methods

This branch of educational psychology relates to a method when educators implement an independent variable when dealing with a dependent variable. In other words, teachers address more than one learning method to identify how they can have a positive impact on the cognitive functions of students as a group. As an experimental approach, it helps to increase the motivation and involvement of students in various team projects. The primary purpose of experimental psychology in education is to find out what learning methods can assist students as they learn about cooperation.

Accessibility Issues

Educational psychology also addresses various accessibility issues that go beyond having access to technology. It helps to address mental health issues and learning challenges that aren’t always identified. It also addresses negative learning aspects like bullying or classroom harassment. The purpose of educators is to identify the triggers and take action by doing so privately and in a way that will not make the problem an issue that is widely discussed by other students. 

Summing things up, one can see that educational psychology helps to identify the learning potentials of the learners and make relevant changes to the educational process. It also allows teachers to assess students and track their progress in a less biased way. Another important aspect worth mentioning is an adjustment of the curriculum based on the demands of the learners. It paves the way for solving educational problems as the cognitive functions are being addressed. Most importantly, educational psychology helps to identify and overcome the mental barriers that prevent students from learning and processing information. 

Emotional Commitment and Sense of Belonging

The primary purpose of educational psychology is to show how one can learn and retain knowledge by feeling emotional attachment. Psychological science is applied as a way to address the difficulties of the learning process. When a hypothetical learning model remains static, students do not feel motivated and cannot connect the proverbial dots that help them to belong. Educational psychology turns to more engaging learning methods that implement examples and let students take the lead. Once such a method is used in the classroom, the learners use various social factors as a way to voice their opinion. It brings in the element of flexibility, thus affecting the psycho-emotional state of the learner. 

You may also like

May 8, 2024

3 Risks You Need to Know of High-Impact Exercise When Overweight

How to dodge desk job aches and pains at work, what could be blocking you from a healthy lifestyle, what you need to know for safely doing pelvic floor exercises.

May 7, 2024

Nine Ideas to Turn Your Home into a Luxurious Retreat

Building better sleep hygiene: 10 tips for creating the perfect sleep environment, how to cope with a teenager who doesn’t listen to you, personalized home care as the key to independent living, online activities that can help you focus and have fun.

May 4, 2024

7 Effective Ways to Support a Loved One Battling Cancer

Does it make sense to treat veterans who suffer from ptsd with psychedelics.

May 3, 2024

Tips for Maximizing Your Tax Write-Offs: A Guide to Reducing Taxable Income

Psychology Discussion

Educational psychology: meaning, scope and methods.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

After reading this article you will learn about:- 1. Introduction to Educational Psychology 2. Scope of Educational Psychology 3. Meaning 4. Aspects 5. A Cognitive-Developmental View 6. Aims and Objectives 7. Aims and Objectives.

• Methods used in Educational Psychology

1. Introduction to Educational Psychology:

Educational psychology has become a separate discipline altogether as it poses itself in the present time. The individuals who are interested in teaching profession and those who are already in it, as for example, the classroom teachers or educational managers-cum-administrators have become more and more interested in the development of broader and more general themes of educational psychology.

A number of eminent scholars and scientists have in the process contributed to the development of educational psychology as a major applied field within the context of psychology.

A brief historical trekking along the developmental path of educational psychology as it reaches the modern age, would probably be relevant here. Before the emergence of psychology as a discipline in its own right, and of educational psychology as a branch of that discipline—speculation and observation concerning the relation of human nature to the educational process were not uncommon.

In the West, this feature can be traced from pre-Socratic period of classical Greece, where Democritus in fifth Century B. C. advanced his idea of education. He wrote about the importance of education in man’s continuity of life process as well as considered the influence of the home and family upon the child. He held that the father’s self-control and the process of educating himself served to teach the children.

Eventually there arose the importance of child rearing process in educational psychology. Stress was laid upon such matters as training in the management of property by sharing it with the children. In India the same kind of imparting education by the father to the son was a social a practice.

Moulding the son in accordance with the identity of the father —even to be absolutely identified with the son to enter into the son during death as presented in Mahabharata is an example of the same process.

That is, in fact, the essence of patriarchal society. In Arya Society in India, however, education was confined to a particular stra­tum or class, whose formal education started only at the age of 12 after a formal initiation, who became Brahmmacharins.

They were totally separated from the family for a particular period of life—sent to the Guru’s (i.e. teacher’s) Ashram, where they were trained to acquire various skills and given special trainings to lead life and later to attain self-realization, the ultimate aim of education. The concept of mind and its training was more of philosophical nature, than of psychological one.

Much later, psychology replaced philosophical concept after a great deal of research work carried on throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century. Other great names in the field of education of classical period, in West were Socrates, the epitome of education, followed by Plato and Aristotle.

They were gems of post-Socratic period dating back to fourth century B. C. From Plato and Aristotle onward we got glimpses of modern education and its relation to psychological factors.

Scattered throughout their works Aristotle and Plato discussed the following issues such as, “the ends of education, the ideals of the educated man, the disadvantages of being educated, the kinds of education that are appropriate to different kinds of people, the training of the body and the cultivation of bodily skills, the formation of a good character, the possibilities and limits of moral education, the influence of the family in the training, the role of the state in moral education, the effect upon character of music, poetry and other arts; the profession of teaching and the relation of teacher and students, the means and methods of teaching; the nature of learning, the order of learning, the emotional aspect of learning; learning apart from teachers and the acquisition of techniques.”.

Almost the same kind of educational system was operative in ancient India and we see the greatest teacher Krishna teaching the most obedient disciple Arjuna in Gita and imparting the kind of education embodying the ethos of Indian social thoughts and Indian idealism.

Aristotle’s psychological views relevant to the educational matters are presented more systematically, logically and in greater details than as forwarded either by Socrates or Plato. Aristotle’s views encouraged the working of faculty psychology and emphasized more of intellectual and rational processes than the emotional ones.

Aristotle laid the foundation for the main psychological doctrines taught and accepted by the learned world for the next two centuries to come. They were subsequently modified by the later psychologists throughout the developmental period of history of educational psychology.

In the hands of seventeenth century philosophers, specially Descartes, mind was equated with innate ideas which did not arise from experience, rather the ideas are considered as the basis of true knowledge. The scientific character of psychology remained a doom at that period.

But very soon John Locke, in the same century, renowned as empiricist, initiated the first wide and continued protest against the form of faculty psychology current in his time.

He argued that the faculties do not function by themselves, knowledge is gained when the mind becomes functional as it comes in contact with the external environment. At birth the human mind does not perform but is potentially sensitive to impressions from outside through the senses.

“Through the empirical process of experience he receives sensory experiences from which simple experiences are built into complex ideas, through the internal activity of reflection, and ideas”…. They arose from sensory impressions and from the processes of reflection. Thus arise all knowledge, all values, all learning. This learning by experience come to be known as empiricism.

The interactional processes between one’s self and environment involved in learning laid the foundation of modern psychology—the non-faculty point of view turned into behaviouristic character. And psychology—instead of being defined as science of mind (psyche+logos)—achieved a scientific status and, finally, came to be defined as the science of human behaviour.

Modern psychology, a science of behaviour like all other sciences, has its origin in the feeling of curiosity of the primitive man. His curious inquiry about the nature and its events ultimately gave rise to physical and biosciences of modern age. The same curiosity about his own thinking, feeling and willing, dreaming and imagining gave rise to an inquiry into the mental process, which gradually helped the emergence of the science of psychology.

According to the modern definition of psychology, mind can be analysed functionally into different mental processes—cognitive, conative and emotive and is .expressed through behaviour of the interacting person. Hence psychology is a science of behaviour.

Psychology emerged as a scientific discipline as and when Withhelm Wundt—the founder of experimental psychology— established the first psychological laboratory at Leipzig in Germany in the year 1879. From that time onward the learned world witnessed a host of renowned psychologists working in different aspects of mental performances and a long intellectual pursuit of psychological discoveries ensured.

This led more and more to the application of theories, branching, specialization, specification of methods as well as more and more qualitative and quantitative sophistication of techniques. One such branching encompasses the educational field and has been termed as Educational Psychology which emerged as a separate discipline, involving the general principles of experimental psychology applied in the field of education.

A great name in the history of educational thoughts in the early 19th century was Pestalozzi who psychologised education by emphasizing upon ‘education’ as a process of drawing out the functional mind of the individual.

The next great advance in educational psychology came about mid-nineteenth century when Johann Frederich Herbart, a German professor, formulated an approach to education based directly and avowedly upon psychology.

From the end part of nineteenth century till the beginning of twentieth century a number of famous psychologists started working in different lines of education applying the principles and techniques of general psychology. Among them mention may be made of Francis Galton, the oldest of the founders of educational psychology.

He conducted the first experimental investigation of associationism, tests on reaction time and sensory acuity. Stanley Hall, meanwhile, published his papers using the questionnaire to investigate the minds of children. In 1885 Ebbinghans published his study on memory and, within the span of six years, events of importance like objective measurement, child psychology and learning experiments, all took place.

To add to the list enriching the movement was Galton’s studies on nature-nurture problem, mental inheritance of ability, studies of twins, widespread realizations of individual differences in the psychological sense, various mental and physical developments as well as use of psychological tests and their statistical interpretation (particularly the correlational studies which was later followed by Karl Pearson), rating scales and questionnaires. “His most important theoretical contribution was the distinction in the ‘Structure of mind’ between a general broad ability of intelligence and special abilities entering only into narrower ranges of activity”.

The next major contributor to the foundation of educational psychology was Alfred Binet in the field of intelligence testing. With assistance of Theophile Simon, he developed the first Binet Scale. Then comes John Dewey whose contribution is rather noteworthy in the field of educational philosophy than in the general psychological field.

After Dewey, from the year 1900 to some ten or twelve years more, educational psychology remained more or less in incubation till Edward L. Thorndike came out with his revolutionary ‘laws of learning’.

He was possibly the first man to be called an educational psychologist in the modern sense of the term. He studied the art and science of learning very systematically and consistently. Then joined Woodworth with Thorndike and together they worked on transfer of training at the turn of the century.

Thorndike then published three volumes of Educational Psychology between 1913-14 consisting of his original work arising from experimental research. His studies in various related fields of education opened up new vistas to be trekked by later educational psychologists.

2. Scope of Educational Psychology :

Educational psychology embraced over the years various fields of education e.g. intelligence testing, mental abilities, achievement testing, child psychology, developmental psychology, school performance, mental deficiency, curriculum, personality, character, educational measurement and so on and so forth.

In 1910, the Journal of Educational Psychology was first published, to reveal experimental researches on various psychological issues regarding education and their interpretations.

In the recent past the field of educational psychology has become more complex as the vision of what it encompasses has broadened. Originally concerned with learning and measurement its scope has been extended with each succeeding generation to the point where now the newest extension is in social-educational field and a new branch emerged in educational psychology known as educational social psychology.

In conclusion, we may note that the aim of educational psychology is to apply psychological concepts and principles in order to improve educational practice. Educational psychology that has evolved as a new discipline tends to represent all the areas within psychology in general.

These include some distinct areas dealing with human development, individual difference in ability, aptitude and temperament, perception, motivation, learning, thinking, problem-solving, psychopathology, the dynamics of personality and group interactional processes.

The educational scientists have employed two strategies for applying psychology in education. Consequently, two kinds of researches had been advanced in the field of educational psychology; the first is the direct experimental investigation of learning in laboratory and school settings.

The second has been an attempt to distil from basic psychological research the educational proceedings to be employed in teaching-learning situation, implication of learning in its broader perspective (formal and informal learning), and also human nature and its interactions.

In this process educational psychology deals not only with the individual’s own psychology and its functioning, but also an awareness of his interacting counterpart, the changing environment—both physical and social.

Any educational endeavour is actually a learning situation; the task of educational psychology is to study the learner in that situation. The first learning situation outside the family a child (or a learner) encounters is the school, which is again teaching-learning condition oriented. The teacher’s duty in this setting is to apply the general propositions received from psychology and apply them in the classroom.

But not one single strategy employed so far had yielded any fruitful result. A more practical oriented strategy is required in order to synthesize the learner, the teacher the instructional techniques and the educational managers on the one hand and producing qualified students to meet the demand of the day, on the other.

The world we live in today is shaped to a considerable degree by the decisions people make—individually and collectively. Any decision-making needs possessing some knowledge and use them in solving problems. In other words, the kind of perceiving, thinking and evaluating that goes into the problem solving has to be considered.

Historically, possession of knowledge and its utilization are learned during the developmental years of the children through interacting with parents, employers, religious and political leaders as well as teachers in the classroom.

The interaction with the teachers is no less important in the process of our lifelong learning even if the exposure to school be brief and transitory (this is stated considering the number of dropouts at the school level in our country). It has an impact in their lives, nevertheless.

Specially in the developing countries like India and South Asia the involvement of young people with teachers and schools is certainly increasing as revealed by survey reports at Governmental level for the last two decades. Teachers do play an active role in the teaching-learning system.

It will not be unreasonable to say that the kind of future we and our children will experience is influenced more by teachers than by any other professional groups.

The world of tomorrow will be shaped not only by what today’s children are learning from their teachers, but also by the ‘way’ they are learning it, for it is the way knowledge is presented that determines how children will learn to solve problems. Thus according to Lindgren (1980), the ‘how’ of teaching includes not only teaching methods, but also teachers’ attitudes and values, and full range of teachers’ classroom behaviours.

They serve as ‘models’ whose way of thinking, behaving, attitudes, advice and manner, the process of acquiring and imparting knowledge are imitated in more ways than they can imagine. Hence they are influential far beyond their immediate awareness. Therefore, it is necessary that the teachers know consciously their personal psychology in order to understand the psychology of their students.

3. Meaning of Educational Psychology:

A text book point of view :

Educational Psychology may be defined as the study of the human mind and behaviour with relation to teaching-learning process. Educational Psychology involves all the people who learn and help learning, teach and help teaching.

Hence educators, psychologists, teachers, learners, parents and friends, workers and bosses, relatives and associates all form part and parcel of this process, because all of us try to learn and teach. We learn nearly all our life and watch others learn. We try to teach each other, trying to arrange conditions to achieve success in life.

In the process we try to modify in same way our aims and objectives, beliefs, values, attitudes, aspirations, practices and skills. Sometimes we do it unaware and, therefore, fail to approach in a systematic and effective way. But when the same thing is being done consciously and with a voluntary effort the process becomes professional and sophisticated— teaching becomes institutionalized.

But the classroom, in spite of undergoing a conscious formal processing, is not immune to the deficiencies mentioned above. As we inquire and wonder “why” such things happen even when we follow a set rule, there remains the scope to discover what other kinds of arrangements have a greater probability of success. “This is what texts in educational psychology are about”.

Educational psychologist believes that the answer to such “why” question can be given with a thorough knowledge of the psychological principles underlying all learning activities. So, how does psychological inquiries contribute to education is the theme of educational psychology.

The psychologist observes systematically about the traditional educational practices and ideas, their strength and weaknesses, and improve upon them, if necessary. They evaluate methods and techniques, offers concepts for the teachers and curriculum-makers to consider while framing plans.

That endeavour helps the educator to become applied scientists, who would make judgment about values and assumptions, about taking educational decisions, encouraging use of advanced educational technology to enrich the educative process. Educational psychology as a beha­vioural science contributes to the soundness of both traditional and up-to-date technology.

The subject matter of educational psychology, though restricted to teaching-learning domain only, is an applied field of the broader principles of psychology, which deals with human behaviour, in general.

According to the behaviouristic concepts in education the term behaviour can be subclassified into such terms as exploratory, impulsive, involuntary, learned, reflexive, purposeful, emotional, patternized risk taking, reinforced, modified and shaped behaviour, and extinction of a behaviour.

The aims of educational psychology are understanding, predicting and controlling behaviour in learning situations. So far as learning process is concerned, three sections of psychology contributed most in evolving the scope of it. These three styles have been distinguished as behaviouristic, humanistic and cognitive-developmental. “Behaviourism seeks to develop firm conclusions from objective evidence, and avoids discussion of internal psychological processes.”

This view is a product of the protect lodged by Watson long ago in the history of psychology when psychology used to be defined as the science of soul or mind, derived from the word psyche. Soon the scientists and educators realized that the mind, as such, is difficult to study, observable behaviour is more easily analyzed as a clue to person’s ideas, knowledge, feelings and other inert mental processes.

Humanistic psychology emphasizes inner feelings and interpretations. Wishing to explain broad phenomena, the humanist accepts wide variety of data, including naturalistic observation. “The cognitive-developmental psychologist sees the person as actively engaging his environment, thinking about his experience, and growing as a result.”

4. Aspects of Educational Psychology:

Behaviouristic Aspect :

All psychologists observe behaviuor of the learner. Strict behaviourist in the learning situation will only restrict his observation on what is seen, and what can be recorded objectively. The strict behaviourist relies only on responses given to a stimulus, where reasoning is cautious and conclusions are limited to observable behaviour; i.e. he notices only what the learner ‘does’ without any reference to inner mental states. “He concentrates on aspects of the situation that can be experimentally altered and controlled”.

A major figure in the behaviouristic much of his research on operant conditioning, which was carried on by his followers subsequently, was based mainly on how rewards—which he called ‘rein-forcers’— affect responses.

The behaviouristic emphasis is summed up in the following assumptions or working hypotheses:

i. The environment can be unambiguously characterized in terms of stimuli.

ii. Behaviour can be unambiguously characterized in terms of responses. (After a stimulus is presented, an observer can say that the response did or did not occur).

iii. A class of stimuli called ‘reinforcers’ can be identified. (The reinforcer may be grains in the pigeon’s cup or the teacher’s nod of approval following the student’s response to a question. A reinforcer makes the response it follows more likely in future).

iv. Learning can be completely characterized in terms of couplings among stimuli, responses and reinforcers.

v. Unless there is definite evidence to the contrary, any type of behaviour is assumed to be learned, to be open to change when the conditions are altered, to be trainable, and to be extinguishable (in the sense that a habit can be wiped out). Psychologists in the behaviouristic tradition had had great success in dealing with some difficult practical problems.

When the reinforcement conditions can be controlled and the desired outcome is definite, behaviouristic techniques can work remarkably well. But it has its weakness too. Exceptional emphasis on objective behaviour speaks nothing about the subjective aspect of experience.

Behaviouristic technique may operate successfully and effectively in a research setting or in labortory condition, but broad and long term conditions are ignored by the strict behaviourist.

The behaviourists hardly examine the learner’s total school career—their study of learning conditions are piecemeal. Moreover, the learner’s purpose and his self-fulfilment are hard to discuss in behaviouristic language. These questions were raised by the critics of behaviourism.

As a result, a second line of behaviourism emerged in the field of educational psychology which is known as neo-behaviourism. It takes up a broad range of phenomena, and does consider cognitive process. The neo-behaviourists reinterpreted the concept of learning and behaviour, expanded the usage of reinforcement.

‘They recognized that reinforcement involves a subjective feeling — it provides information as well as pleasure’. A person learns to anticipate the consequences of his behaviour when learning gradually becomes complex, and he learns to change his behaviour accordingly which is more than stimulus-response connection.

Humanistic Aspect :

Humanistic approach is more humane, more subjective and involves more mentalistic concepts than the objectivity oriented behaviouristic viewpoint. They accept all the terms and language which are discarded by the behaviourists.

Humanistic psychology is particularly interested in the inner states of mental processes, man’s feelings, aspirations, motives and motivation. The humanists are very much concerned with the ‘self’ of the individual, his self-awareness and self-esteem.

They see each person as a self-directing, integrated being, evolving in a unique direction as he interprets his experiences. Observation is also a method for the humanist, and he recognizes the subject as a self-observant. Their prime data rests on what a person says about his present feelings and recollection of past experiences. They count much on a person’s image of world—take them as unit rather than breaking them up as single action into stimulus and response.

Among contemporary humanistic psychologists, one of the most eminent is Erik Erikson who based his studies of American Indian tribes and of such men as Luther and Gandhi. His famous work is on ‘identity’ (Identity: Youth and Crisis, 1968). The same view has been corroborated by Abraham Maslow, who took similar position, equating healthy development with “self-actualization”. The humanistic psychologists examine the human conditions in life situations and do not restrict their observations to the well- controlled conditions only.

They prefer to observe the human behaviour in its natural setting at par with the traditions of natural scientists. For this they base their observations on biographical and anthropological studies of the whole culture or on interviews that examine the sources of a person’s lifestyle, and even on his own introspection and reflections.

They study the individual’s impressions in a social context, his value judgment of educative importance and the values that he himself incorporates. The humanists have strong views about good life and good society and, within this limitation, they are permissive on an individual’s self-determinism. It may sound romantic but in fact the humanistic psychologists are considered more democratic than the behaviouristic ones. The behaviourist-humanistic dialectic is alive in the minds of most educational psychologists when they plan an education system.

5. A Cognitive-Developmental View of Educational Psychology :

The exponent of this theory is Lee. J. Cronbach. He explains his theory first by analysing the terms involved. The first one, i.e. cognitive part, stresses the active ‘intellectual’ functioning of the person. The second stresses that behaviour develops in a ‘cumulative fashion’. Any behaviour means not only a reaction to the present circumstances but the past experiences are equally important to constitute such behaviour.

An experience when is converted into behaviour involves both cognitive and affective aspect. By ‘cognitive’ we mean understanding, reasoning, interpretation, and intellectual analysis—’to become acquainted with’. “Affective” is associated with emotions, preferences, interests and positive and negative feelings.

The contrast between the two meanings is apparent so far as an experience is concerned; any experience is coloured both with cognitive and affective elements i.e. a cognitive experience is also affective in nature.

The nature of cognitive behaviour changes as a person develops. Behaviour and attitudes evolve in part through encounters with the world; hence the developmental psychologists compare persons living in different conditions in their natural settings, like the humanistic psychologists.

The developmental psychologists, therefore, classify children, for example, either in terms of social-class background, or in terms of age groups or in terms of parent’s style of child-rearing etc.

These psychologists employ sometimes standardized con­ditions for making age-to-age or group-to-group comparisons like that of the behaviourists. But even in doing so the internal mental processes are equally attended to by the cognitive- developmental style. For example, external behaviour plus encoding, self-criticism and identification and such other mental processes are duly considered.

Educational psychology considers all the above approaches in determining behaviour of the learners and teachers. It helps the teachers to plan their lessons, to program their instructions, to develop insight or regarding their students.

The central implications of educational psychology leads us to ensure that:

(1) Behaviour is purposive—that whenever a person is actively engaged in tackling a problem-situation, learning takes place.

(2) Personality Development is cumulative—that “societal-demands set developmental tasks for the person at each age level. These generate needs that provide the core of motivation” i.e. motivations are culturally determined which are constituents of personality.

(3) Abilities are expressed through behaviour which enable the persons to acquire new knowledge through intelligence where concepts, techniques and attitudes work together to know the unfamiliar.

(4) Educational psychology helps teaching to be scientific, technical and professional.

It is true that the essence of teaching involves emotions, values, instantaneous judgment, and intuition which science cannot provide, because these cannot be standardized. But teaching is also a skill, which can be improved through application of scientific techniques. Some new techniques have been directly inspired by research on behaviour. A good example is computer-aided instruction.

The rationale for computer-assisted instruction rests in part on the principle of feedback or reinforcement. Clear-cut signals about the appropriateness of responses shape response patterns. The first deve­lopments were programmed instructional materials in printed forms. Nowadays the computer offers considerably better flexibility than the printed page—a technologically controlled education.

(5) Decision making, problem solving can be made easy with the application management models forwarded by modern technology (e.g. ‘automated’ vs ‘informate’ model).

6. Aims and Objectives of Educational Psychology:

Let us start this section with Gordon Allport’s caution: “One aim of education is to make available the wisdom of the past and present so that youth will be equipped to solve the problems of future”.

The general aims of educational psychology, as stated before, are understanding, predicting and controlling behaviour in learning situations. As the learning situation includes, teacher, learner, classroom environment and evaluation of their interactions, therefore, each objective can be separately treated.

The aims are closely related with the functional aspects of educational psychology. Hence the functional objectives are:

(1) To evaluate educational theories and put to application the workable part of it;

(2) To examine contemporary educational practices and suggest the modifications required;

(3) To critically examine and evaluate contemporary teaching methodology in the light of established principles of learning and motivation in varying con­ditions of different cultures, different environments and different facilities provided.

(4) To provide methods for researchers who are scientifically studying educational problems.

(5) To assess and modify the principles and practical operations according to the set values/beliefs and attitude of a culture and also to maintain the scope for the changes with time.

In order to point out the aims of educational psychology it is better to remember William James, who—as early as 1898— put an important question in psychology; “What we are about”? Educational psychology should provide such answer to this question as it is through learning, through experiences a behavioural change occurs and makes a man what he is.

Educators not only look to educational psychology to learn “what we are” about, but also to learn “what we should be about” in education tomorrow—it is not only to ‘be’ but to ‘become’.

But to achieve it, is a hard task. The world is changing so fast that parents and teachers now see that tomorrow is not a photocopy of yesterday, present is not the replica of the past; learning of their time is totally different from that of nowadays.

We need an image of tomorrow’s society while teaching today and in framing the aims our image must include the likelihood of radical changes—changes that we are today unable to comprehend.

Because the changes that are likely to occur in possible future is not one-sided, not singular, but plural, many-sided and global. Subject to the choices we would make innumerable arrayed options where some lines of development are more likely than others.

An eye to this will help the educators to frame future sensible goals at present time. The sensible goals signify that the development of personality or constant individual growth must take into consideration the meaning and purpose of human life.

The educationists who set the goals should remember and realize that the homo-sepiens, though primarily animals, are most advanced forms of life. Neither are they to regard people as machines, just a little higher or lower than the computer. “A major task of psychology of the future is to help humans learn how to learn and discover, perhaps to help expand the human potential”.

The identification and proper statement of the educational objectives of a lesson is the most important step in instructional planning. When a teacher knows where he is reaching, what is his specific objective, he will be able to decide how he will be designing a lesson. Therefore, getting a clear statement of educational objectives is the first step in the systematic application of psychology to education.

The setting of goals in terms of objectives i.e. to understand, to predict and to control behaviour is the behavioural objectives for the teacher. The first behavioural objective for the teacher is understanding the terms “understanding” and “knowing” and these are the key ones of the various educational objectives.

While setting instructional materials the teacher should analyse the objectives in behavioural terms, like knowing, understanding and recognizing the importance of the materials presented.

Therefore, in setting up educational objectives, the objectives are to be interpreted in such behavioural terms as:

1. Specific statement of properly stated objective.

2. Differentiating between properly stated and improperly stated objectives.

3. Expressing educational goals in terms of behaviourally stated objectives.

The test for whether a person—child or adult—”knows”, or “understands” a concept means whether he talks or act appropriately—appropriate to the statement made. In the same way to test whether the person understands a statement made for him, one must witness the fact, watch him talk and act accordingly when confronted with the test situations, or when circumstances arise in the natural course of events.

Therefore, a teacher, when imparting a concept to a student, must check all the aspects of concepts—translate them into behaviour (behavioural concepts) and then test his range of understanding (behavioural objective).

The educational objectives, then, help the educator in deciding what is required to evaluate a person’s understanding which is in essence, identifying those tests he wants his students to pass after instruction. Such understanding will also pinpoint the ‘skills’ and ‘knowledge’ which are involved in the process of understanding.

Teaching these are the educational goals interpreted as proper form for statements of educational objectives, whereas instructional objective is to teach a concept or to teach an understanding of a concept.

For example a concept of addition involves many things. “An ‘understanding’ of addition could be broken down into an understanding of part-whole relationships (Objective I), a ‘Knowledge’ of the sums and columns of rows and numbers (Objective II), an understanding of word problems involving addition (Objective III) and so on”, (ibid) Breaking down the objectives into more specific statements removes some of the vagueness, so that objectives are stated behaviourally, in terms of what student is to say or do – in terms of student’s behaviour.

Teacher’s Objectives :

The central theme of all education is learning, and the teacher’s objective is to guide and stimulate pupils in their educational growth. The teacher should look into the conditions needed for effective learning and its method of application.

The main behavioural objective of the teacher is to understand the characteristics of children and adolescents and the basic principles of learning, knowledge about the subject matter and bring all these knowledge into the classroom. Each child comes to the school equipped with experiences gathered from his environment in his own way and peculiar to himself.

He uses his experiences so gathered to accumulate variety of .them which he uses again to interpret his new environment and new experiences. Schooling should help them to reshape their concepts whenever necessary so that they may be helpful to reinterpret them in social context, thereby broadening existing concepts, developing new skills, acquire new attitudes and reorganize behaviour. This is how enriched learning takes place.

Today student-teacher objectives are often expressed explicitly as outcomes or learning. Such objectives generally include subject matter, knowledge, and learning-oriented attitudes, appreciations, interests and skills. The main and most important teacher’s objective is to help children acquire behaviour patterns that contribute to effective living.

7. Methods Used in Educational Psychology :

Educational psychology—being a behavioural science— uses scientific methods of behavioural research. The commonest of all the methods is observation. Educational psychology uses observation not as common-sense view sees it.

It uses systematic observation which equates methods with research in the educational field and is also scientific in character. As such, the subject matter of educational psychology is human behaviour and every one can observe behaviour.

But educational psychology avoids subjective observation and employs the method objectively to evaluate behaviour and its modification which is a product of learning. An educational psychologist adopts systematic, objective and investigative measures in assessing the effects of learning in the pupils.

Such in-depth scientific probes are necessary if we are to explain, predict and control behaviour with any acceptable degree of accuracy. This is in short, scientific observation.

Educational research depends on the use of scientific method which need to follow five steps for its investigation. These steps are:

(1) Formulating the problem,

(2) Stating the hypotheses,

(3) Collection of data from respective fields,

(4) Testing the hypotheses,

(5) Interpreting and reporting the findings, and

(6) Applying the findings. Researches in educational psychology can be conducted in the classroom, in the laboratory or in the outer field as is necessary.

Laboratory research has sometimes been referred to as pure research, while that conducted in the classroom is known as applied research.

The use of scientific methods in educational psychology has produced profound changes in organization and management of school, curriculum, syllabus making, learning materials, audio-visual aids, effective lesson planning and instruction methods.

A number of scientific teaching methods have been tried out in the classroom researches to get effectiveness in teaching e.g. discovery method, the learner- centered method, the Socratic method, the project method, the laboratory method or the tutorial method—based upon various conditions with various subject matters and with various kinds of students.

However, the detailed descriptions will be available in books on research methodology—which deal with the introduction, improvement and either rejection or retention of a particular method or combination of them as required by the teacher while imparting instruction. The researchers also use the methods in order to reach to any conclusion following a hypothesis or an assum­ption they adopt.

Related Articles:

• Notes on Educational Psychology: Nature, Scope and Methods
• Educational Psychology: Meaning, Need, Scope and Quotations
• Educational Psychology (Notes)
• Relationship Between Education and Psychology

Psychology , Educational Psychology , India , Meaning of Educational Psychology

4 Chapter 1. Conclusions

In conclusion, the first chapter of this textbook has provided you with a glimpse into the multifaceted nature of the field of psychology. We have explored the fundamental question of “What is Psychology?” and have discussed its diverse subfields and applications. Moreover, we have delved into the rich history of psychology, acknowledging both its achievements and its ugliness, such as psychology’s contribution to eugenics and its failure to recognize the intellectual potential of BIPOC people and women. We have highlighted the transformative efforts of social justice activists within the discipline. As you consider becoming a psychology major or potential careers in psychology, it is important to recognize the profound impact psychologists can have on individuals and society as a whole. By studying the human mind and behavior, we can contribute to understanding, supporting, and advocating for the well-being of others. With this knowledge, we hope that you will embrace opportunities to make a positive difference and foster social change.

Introduction to Psychology (A critical approach) Copyright © 2021 by Rose M. Spielman; Kathryn Dumper; William Jenkins; Arlene Lacombe; Marilyn Lovett; and Marion Perlmutter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 07 May 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  48 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Daniel R. Espinas 1 , 2 &
• Brennan W. Chandler 2  

We conducted a systematic review of research involving K-12 students that examined associations among individual differences factors (e.g., working memory) and intertextual integration. We identified 25 studies published in 23 peer-reviewed journal articles and two dissertations/theses. These examined a wide range of individual difference factors, which we organized into four categories: (a) language and literacy, (b) cognition and metacognition, (c) knowledge and beliefs, and (d) motivation, emotion, and personality. We found large variation in the participants, tasks, and document types, and little systematic replication across studies. Nonetheless, results generally showed that variation in literacy, cognition, metacognition, knowledge, beliefs, and motivation are positively and moderately associated with intertextual integration. We discuss the limitations of this work and offer four recommendations for future research.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Reading is a social practice defined by one’s historical and cultural context (Gee, 2007 ). Indeed, from its on origins on clay pots, advances in writing technology (e.g., printing press) have radically changed the forms that texts can take; how they are shared and accessed; their roles in social, cultural, and economic practices; and expectations for who should be able to read and produce them (Manguel, 1996 ; Olson, 1994 ). This gradual evolution has seen rapid developments over the past 30 years, with advances in digital technology now offering near universal access to text documents, and in effect changing what readers read (Mackey, 2020 ), how they do it (Baron, 2021 ; Rouet, 2005 ; Wolf, 2018 ), and for what purposes (Coiro, 2021 ; Leu et al., 2019 ; Magliano et al., 2018 ). Consequently, what is now regarded as literate differs markedly from that of even several decades ago (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory 2012 ; Britt et al., 2018 ). It is within this new context that we consider one aspect of literacy that has become increasingly common: intertextual integration.

The matter of integrating multiple information sources has been a topic of great interest in several fields (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2012 ; Braasch et al., 2018 ; Nelson & King, 2022 ). Given our interest in applications for K-12 literacy learning and instruction, we focus in this study on intertextual integration as it has been conceptualized within educational psychology. In this context, intertextual integration refers to the mental process of selecting, organizing, corroborating, and synthesizing information from multiple document sources for the purpose of constructing a coherent representation of the situation presented among them (Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Brand-Gruwel et al., 2009 ; Britt et al., 1999 ; Leu et al., 2015 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ; Wineburg, 1991 ). We focus here primarily on connections among text documents made during reading and writing, rather than connections made between information presented in other types of media (e.g., pictures, videos) or in other forms of discourse (e.g., conversations). Note that this definition of intertextual integration overlaps with the concept of intertextuality (Allen, 2022 ; Bazerman, 2004 ; Lemke, 2004 ). The latter has been defined in a variety of ways but generally refers to connections a person makes between texts and their store of accumulated textual, contextual, and cultural knowledge.

The remainder of this introduction is organized into three parts. First, we discuss the importance of intertextual integration in K-12 educational contexts. Second, provide a capsule summary of how intertextual integration has been conceptualized in frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use. Third, we discuss hypothesized predictors of intertextual integration, and previous efforts to review this literature.

Intertextual Integration in K-12 Education

Over the past century, reading research and practice have focused largely on processes involved in reading single, carefully curated documents for a small range of academic purposes (Anderson et al., 1985 ; Gibson & Levin, 1975 ; Huey, 1908 ; Perfetti, 1985 ; Reichle, 2021 ; Scammacca et al., 2016 ). This work has shown that reading depends on learning how oral and written language are structured and connected (Adams, 1990 ; Byrne, 1998 ; Castles et al., 2018 ; Ehri, 2014 ); acquiring rich, well-connected, and easily accessible stores of word, domain, disciplinary, and cultural knowledge (Goldman et al., 2016 ; Hwang et al., 2022 ; Lee, 2007 ; McCarthy & McNamara, 2021 ; Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ); and efficient use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to monitor and construct meaning within a document (Garner, 1987 ; Graesser, 2007 ). A large body of work has also shown that reader characteristics (e.g., motivation) interact with features of the document (e.g., length, genre) and task (e.g., form an argument) to influence comprehension processes and outcomes (Afflerbach 2016 ; Snow, 2002 ).

Although skillful single document reading remains vital, present-day readers often encounter tasks involving multiple printed and digital text documents (Baron, 2021 ). Therefore, beyond the skills just outlined, readers must now also develop facility with a variety of multiple document use skills, to include searching for, selecting, navigating, evaluating, and integrating multiple printed and digital documents (Britt et al., 2018 ). Such skills are critical for academic achievement (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory, 2012 ; National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ), to competitively participate in information-based economies (National Research Council, 2012a , 2012b ; Rouet et al., 2021 ), and to engage in informed civic discourse on matters of science, history, and culture (Goldman et al., 2016 ; Leinhardt & Young, 1996 ; List, 2023 ; Stadtler & Bromme, 2013 ).

Among the skills of multiple document use, intertextual integration plays a prominent role in current college- and career-readiness standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ), in national and international assessment frameworks for K-12 students and adults (National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; Rouet et al., 2021 ; Sparks & Deane, 2015 ), and in conceptual frameworks for disciplinary and digital literacy (Coiro, 2021 ; Goldman et al., 2016 ; Leu et al., 2019 ). For example, the Common Core State Standards state that kindergarten students should be able to, “…identify similarities in and differences between two texts on the same topic…” (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ). Fifth graders are to “[d]raw on information from multiple print or digital sources…” and “[i]ntegrate information from several texts on the same topic…” And by 11th and 12th grade, students are to “[i]ntegrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media formats…” Similarly, it is expected in K-12 standards for social studies (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ) and science (National Research Council, 2013 ) that students develop competency with gathering, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple sources.

Tasks involving intertextual integration unfortunately prove difficult for many readers (Cho, 2013 ; Goldman et al., 2012 ; Many, 1996 ; McGrew et al., 2018 ; Raphael & Boyd, 1991 ; Rott & Gavin, 2015 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Yang, 2002 ). Indeed, although children and adolescents regularly work with multiple documents in language arts, social studies, and science, they rarely form spontaneous intertextual connections (Cho et al., 2018 ; Many, 1996 ; Many et al., 1996 ; Stahl et al., 1996 ; VanSledright, 2002 ; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998 ; Wolfe & Goldman, 2005 ). This has been found even for college-level students (Greene, 1993 ; Kennedy, 1985 ; McGinley, 1992 ; Rott & Gavin, 2015 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Yang, 2002 ). As we will discuss in the following sections, many factors have been proposed for why intertextual integration proves so difficult.

As with single document comprehension (Magliano et al., 2023 ; Wang et al., 2019 ), it is possible that intertextual integration skills cannot fully develop until foundational reading and writing skills are secured. However, evidence from at least one study suggests that intertextual integration is possible even with impaired word-level reading skills (Andresen, Anmarkrud, Salmerón, et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, even as children are developing word-level reading skills, they can be capable of performing complex comprehension tasks (Williams et al., 2016 ). Moreover, even by the age of six, children are able to monitor information sources (Drummey & Newcombe, 2002 ; Lindsay et al., 1991 ) and even critically evaluate their trustworthiness (Koenig & Harris, 2005 ). As reflected in current instructional standards (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ), it is not unreasonable to expect that even in kindergarten, and certainly by the upper elementary grades, children may be capable of integrating information from multiple text sources. In the following sections, we discuss what is known about intertextual integration and its predictors.

Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Intertextual Integration

Many psychological frameworks, theories, and models have been proposed to account for intertextual integration within the broader context of multiple document use (Afflerbach et al., 2014 ; Afflerbach & Cho, 2009 ; Bråten et al., 2020 ; Britt et al., 2018 ; Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2021 ; Cho & Afflerbach, 2017 ; Leu et al., 2019 ; List, 2020 ; List & Alexander, 2017a , 2019 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Rouet et al., 2017 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Stadtler & Bromme, 2014 ; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2022 ; Yang, 2002 ). In Table A1 , we have listed a selection of 12, ranging from generalized to specialized accounts. We have provided summaries in the table of the major points of each and have noted the cognitive and affective factors that are explicitly specified in them. As context for the rest of the article, we provide a detailed description of the Documents Model Framework (DMF; Britt et al., 1999 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ) as it has provided the foundation for much of the theorizing and empirical work that has followed.

The DMF provided the first attempt at a psychological account of how meaning is constructed from multiple documents. It emerged from research on text-based history learning (Perfetti et al., 1995 ), in which it is common for readers to engage with multiple documents that present discrepant information and often vary in length, layout, format, structure, purpose, and reliability. Within the discipline of history, it is important to evaluate features of the document sources (i.e., sourcing) and consider how information presented among them is related (i.e., corroborate; Wineburg, 1991 ). Notably, intertextual integration proves important also in science and literature (Goldman et al., 2016 ).

It is proposed in the DMF that integration is accomplished by constructing two representations: an integrated situations model and an inter-text model (Britt et al., 1999 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ). The integrated situations model contains from each document semantic information about the common topic or issue being discussed. The inter-text model comprises meta-document information, such as the source author, publication, date, and purpose. This information is captured in networks of source-document nodes (Perfetti et al., 1999 ).

The reader’s comprehension will depend on the forms of these two models (Britt et al., 1999 ). Following Britt et al.'s ( 1999 ) framework, three possible outcomes are illustrated in Fig.  1 : (a) a mush model, (b) a separate representation model, and (c) a document model. A mush model is one in which the reader constructs a well-formed integrated situation model but a undeveloped inter-text model. In this case, information from across the documents is well represented but not linked to the sources from which it originated. Moreover, information about the sources and links among them are not captured. The opposite pattern can be seen in the separate representations model , wherein the inter-text model is well developed but the situation model is unformed. In this case, content is recalled and linked to each source but is not cohesively integrated. With the documents model , both the situation model and the inter-text model are well-formed. Information is clearly linked to the documents from which it originated, relations among the documents are captured (e.g., agree, disagree), and a well-integrated representation of the situation is formed.

Adapted from Fig.  3 in List et al. ( 2019 ), Fig. 1 in Saux et al. ( 2021 ), and Fig. 4.2a in Perfetti et al. ( 1999 )

Multiple document representations. 

Forming intertextual connections is highly effortful—requiring both bottom-up and top-down processes (Kurby et al., 2005 ; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2022 ). Accordingly, these connections may not be formed in cases where the reader views them as unnecessary or is unable to do so. In certain contexts (e.g., history class) and for certain tasks (e.g., research report), though, it may be important to construct well-formed intertextual representations (e.g., documents model). Certain tasks can also promote greater intertextual integration than others (e.g., arguments vs. summaries; McNamara et al., 2023 ; Wiley & Voss, 1999 ). However, in other contexts, and for other tasks, the high cognitive effort may outweigh the need. Therefore, the likelihood that a reader will construct a particular representational form (e.g., mush model) depends in part on the context and task at hand (Frederiksen, 1975 ; Rouet & Britt, 2011 ; Rouet et al., 2017 ; Spivey, 1995 ; Van Dijk, 1979 ). In the following section, we turn the role played by individual differences in shaping intertextual integration.

Individual Differences in Intertextual Integration

A sizeable literature has examined the role that individual differences play in intertextual integration (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ). However, few of these studies have used intervention, longitudinal, or computational designs. This has greatly limited what can be concluded about the existence, direction, or magnitude of any potential causal relations. However, predictors of intertextual integration have been studied in many cross-sectional investigations. As an initial step toward synthesizing this literature, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting concurrent associations among individual differences factors (e.g., working memory) and intertextual integration.

Previous efforts to review this literature have revealed many useful insights (Alexander & Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2020 ; Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ; Bråten et al., 2011 ; List & Sun, 2023 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ) but are limited by several factors. First, only several reviews have used systematic and transparent search procedures (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; List & Sun, 2023 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ). This is critical for reducing sampling error and for ensuring replicability (Alexander, 2020 ; Cumming et al., 2023 ). Second, previous reviews have synthesized results from studies involving K-12, college, and adult readers (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ). This approach has the benefit of comprehensively mapping the terrain. However, combining such a broad range of ages can obscure potential developmental differences. Moreover, it complicates interpretation for both K-12 and college educators. Finally, most previous reviews have examined a wide range of multiple document use processes (e.g., source selection, source evaluation, intertextual integration) without clearly distinguishing how each is associated with particular individual differences factors.

Despite these limitations, previous reviews have provided useful insights into the roles that individual differences play in intertextual integration. For example, Barzilai and Strømsø ( 2018 ) identified a broad range of individual differences factors (cognition, metacognition, motivation, affect, socio-culture) that are associated with searching for, selecting, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple documents. Furthermore, they found evidence that these individual difference factors interact with one other, the reading task, and the context to produce different comprehension outcomes. However, few sources were cited for most factors and there were often large differences in the populations, documents, and tasks that were studied. This may point to limitations within the literature.

Other reviews have adopted narrower approaches. For example, Richter and Maier ( 2017 ) examined how individual differences in cognition and affect influence how readers identify and resolve discrepancies encountered across multiple documents. Using systematic search procedures, they identified 18 studies involving adolescent and adult readers. They found that readers’ prior beliefs about a topic and epistemic monitoring will determine whether a reader detects belief-inconsistent information. Then, once an inconsistency is detected, the reader’s epistemic goals and beliefs, background knowledge, working memory resources, and store of metacognitive strategies will influence whether they simply form a belief-consistent representation of the controversy or a more balanced mental model. Bråten et al. ( 2011 ) also exampled how beliefs influence multiple document comprehension. With a focus on expository texts, they found that epistemological beliefs (i.e., simplicity, certainty, source, justification) play important roles in creating and updating a task model, assessing information from each source and its relevance for the task, processing source contents, and creating and updating intertextual representations.

Finally, Tarchi et al. ( 2021 ) examined how executive functions (e.g., inhibition) are associated with multiple document use and comprehension. However, by including a wide variety of executive functions (working memory span, working memory reading span, working memory updating, problem solving, strategic processing, regulation, fluid reasoning), a mix of multiple document comprehension processes (intertextual integration, sourcing), and a broad age range (secondary school, undergraduate, adults), they were unable to any find robust patterns of association.

Present Study

The present study advances upon previous reviews in four ways. First, to reduce sampling error and to ensure transparency, we have used systematic search, selection, and coding procedures (Alexander, 2020 ; Cumming et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, to reduce publication bias, we included both peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertation/theses. Second, whereas others have combined results for K-12, college, and adult populations, we focused only on K-12 students. As noted, although intertextual integration is a cognitive taxing processes, it is an integral component of K-12 education (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 , 2010). However, in comparison to undergraduate and adult readers, K-12 students have been studied far less in research on multiple document use (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ). By focusing exclusively on this age range, implications for K-12 educators may be more clearly understood.

Third, whereas most other reviews have examined the roles played by individual differences factors in several components of multiple document use (e.g., search, selection, evaluation, integration), we focused here only on intertextual integration. To this end, we included only studies that clearly measured intertextual integration; not, as others have, combinations of document searching, selecting, evaluating, and integrating sources. In doing so, we provide a clearer assessment of associations among individual differences and intertextual integration. We decided to focus exclusively on intertextual integration for several reasons. First, intertextual integration is clearly referenced in K-12 standards and assessment frameworks (National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ). Therefore, there is clear practical importance for understanding the factors associated with this skill. Second, although individual differences in multiple document sourcing have been the subject of a recent and comprehensive systematic review (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ), previous reviews of intertextual integration have either not used systematic search procedures or focused more narrowly on specific individual differences factors or task types.

Fourth, whereas previous reviews have combined findings from studies with markedly different designs (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, intervention), we examine only concurrent associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration. This provides for a clearer interpretation of the results. In these four ways, this systematic review provides a systematic and transparent assessment of the nature, features, and volume of research that has examined associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration with K-12 students.

Research Questions

Our review was guided by four primary questions.

First, what are the characteristics of the participants involved in research on individual differences in intertextual integration? We predicted that more studies would involve secondary than elementary-level students. Furthermore, we predicted that studies would involve participants from a broad range of Western countries, language backgrounds, and socio-economic backgrounds. Finally, we predicted that few studies would involve participants with educational disabilities (e.g., dyslexia).

Second, what are the features of studies that have examined intertextual integration among K-12 students? Specifically, what kinds of tasks (e.g., form an argument, synthesize the information), documents (e.g., domain, genre, number of texts), and measures (e.g., essay, multiple choice) have been used? Based on previous reviews (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ), we predicted that a wide range of tasks, document types, and measures would be represented. Argumentation tasks, essay measures, and informational documents would be the most common, and narrative tasks, oral response measures, and narrative documents would be used infrequently.

Third, which types of individual differences factors have been studied? Based on previous reviews (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ) and the frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use and comprehension listed in Table A1 , we predicted that the following types of factors would be examined: language and literacy skills (e.g., word-level reading); cognition and metacognition; motivation, emotion, and personality; and knowledge and beliefs. Given the selected age range, we predicted that language and literacy skills would be studied the most and personality the least. Semantic knowledge (e.g., domain, topic) and cognitive processes (e.g., working memory, attention) would be well represented, whereas emotion and epistemic beliefs would not.

Fourth, what is the direction and strength of associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration? We predicted that certain epistemic beliefs (e.g., belief in authority) would be negatively and moderately correlated with intertextual integration (Bråten et al., 2011 ). All other factors would be positively correlated with intertextual integration, with literacy and knowledge being strongly correlated and cognitive skills and emotions being moderately correlated (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ).

We conducted two rounds of searches. The first was in May 2022 and the second in February 2024. For the first round, we used three methods: (1) an electronic database search, (2) a backward search, and (3) a forward search. For the second round, we used a snowballing approach.

Electronic Database Search

We consulted a university librarian to identify databases and search terms to capture relevant records. On 2 May 2022, we searched PsycInfo, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases for articles and theses/dissertations published prior to 2022. We used the following terms to search titles and abstracts: (noft("multiple text" OR "multiple texts" OR "multi-text" OR ("multiple source" OR "multiple sources") OR ("multiple document" OR "multiple documents") OR ("intertext" OR "intertexual")) AND ti,ab,su("read*" OR "write*" OR "process*" OR "navigat*" OR "integrat*" OR "teach*" OR "instruct*" OR "histor*" OR "scien*" OR "socioscientific") AND noft("elementary" OR "primary" OR "middle*" OR "high* " OR "secondary*")). These terms reflect the various ways multiple text use and comprehension have been defined (Goldman & Scardamalia, 2013 ), the disciplines in which this work has been conducted (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ), and the targeted age range (i.e., K-12). The search yielded 4,667 sources.

Backward, Forward, and Snowballing Search

We also conducted a backward search of references from seven reviews and conceptual articles on multiple document comprehension (i.e., Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Bråten et al., 2020 ; List & Alexander, 2019 ; Nelson & King, 2022 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ; Saux et al., 2021 ). Then, using Google Scholar, we conducted an initial forward search for any records that had cited these reviews. Through these methods, we identified 294 sources.

In February 2024, we updated our search using the SnowGlobe application (McWeeny et al., 2021 ). SnowGlobe using a snowballing approach to search the references and citations of selected records. We used the 23 records identified through our initial searches. Using SnowGlobe, we identified 1115 records, of which 186 were duplicates. We used the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in the following section to screen studies in both rounds of searches.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included only sources that met the following six criteria in this review:

The record was a peer-reviewed journal article, dissertation, or thesis. We excluded technical reports, conference abstracts, books, and book chapters. If the study was published as both a dissertation/thesis and journal article, we selected the journal version.

Study participants were enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade (i.e., elementary, middle, or secondary/high school). We excluded studies that only involved undergraduate, graduate, or adult participants. We also excluded studies that did not disaggregate K-12 and adult populations. However, we did include studies involving participants attending prevocational programs.

The study reported original data from a cross-sectional, longitudinal, or group experimental design. We excluded studies that used qualitative or single-case designs.

The study included at least one measure of participants’ intertextual integration. We excluded studies that measured a dimension of multiple document use (e.g., search, selection, evaluation) but not intertextual integration and studies that only measured intertextual integration in combination with another skill (e.g., source evaluation).

The study reported at least one direct (i.e., not partial correlation) and concurrent correlation between an intertextual integration measure and an individual differences measure. If the study used an experimental or quasi-experimental design, measures had to be collected prior to the intervention. Data from any measures collected during or after the intervention were excluded.

The study was published in English prior to February 2024.

Screening and Data Extraction

We used covidence, a commercial web-based platform, for screening and data extraction. As illustrated in Fig.  2 , the process involved three successive stages: (a) title and abstract screening, (b) full text screening, and (c) data extraction.

PRISMA diagram

Title/Abstract and Full-Text Screening

Results from the three search procedures produced 4961 records. After removing duplicates ( k  = 512), we (the first and second author) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 4449 records identified in the first round of screening. The first author independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 1115 records identified in the second round. For title and abstract screening, we used the above noted inclusion and exclusion criteria. When it was unclear whether a record met the inclusion criteria, we advanced it to full-text screening for further review. We addressed all discrepancies through discussions.

Based on the exclusion criteria, we deemed 5561 irrelevant. We independently reviewed the full texts of the remaining 293 from the first search and six from the second. For the first search, we met after coding the first 20 records and then again after the next 50 to discuss discrepancies. After coding the initial 70, we revised wording for several of the exclusion criteria to improve clarity. We met again after the next 100 and then once all the records had been screened to discuss discrepancies. Total agreement for title/abstract screening was 95%, and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.63. For full-text screening, total agreement was 94% and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.67. We excluded 274 for various reasons reported in Fig.  2 . This resulted in 25 records that met the full inclusion criteria. These are listed in the Appendix.

Data Extraction

We developed a codebook based on variables included in several previous reviews of single and multiple document comprehension (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ; Toste et al., 2020 ). The codebook included general information (study ID, publication year, country where the study was conducted, type of source, research question), information about participants (inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, sample size, demographic information), documents information (number, length, format, mode, type, agreement, difficulty), the intertextual integration task (directions, genre, format), and individual differences in literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, rapid naming, decoding, single-text comprehension, written composition), cognition and metacognition (e.g., working memory, attention, processing speed, metacognition), motivation and emotion (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, emotional reactivity), personality (e.g., conscientiousness, need for cognition), knowledge and beliefs (e.g., content/topic knowledge, epistemic cognition), sourcing ability (e.g., trustworthiness), and demographics (e.g., age, sex/gender). We independently coded 24% ( k  = 6) of the sources. Total agreement was 87%, and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.73. We handled all disagreements through discussion. We made several revisions to the codebook to capture the full range of individual differences that were studied. The first author then independently coded the remaining 19 sources. Coded studies are available through the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/xqb4h/ ). 

Participant Characteristics

Records included 23 peer-reviewed journal articles (92%) and two dissertations/theses (8%), all published within a 13-year range from 2009 to 2022. Each record reported results from a single study with an independent sample. Across the studies, 5600 participants were included (median = 99, range = 44–1434). Twenty-two studies (96%) reported sex or gender, of which there 53% were female. Studies were conducted in five countries: Norway ( k  = 9, 36%), Italy ( k  = 6, 24%), the USA ( k  = 5, 20%), the Netherlands ( k  = 3, 12%), Israel ( k  = 1, 4%), and Hong Kong ( k  = 1, 4%). Mean participant age was reported in 21 studies (84%) and ranged from 9 years 7 months (Florit, Cain, Mason  2020 ) to 18 years 6 months (Strømsø et al., 2010 ). Grade levels ranged from fourth to twelfth, with five studies (20%) involving students at the elementary level (grades K-5) and (80%) at the secondary level (grades 6–12). Eight (32%) of the secondary-level studies involved students enrolled in college preparatory and prevocational programs. Although we consider these as part of the K-12 span, specific grade-level correspondences are unclear.

Authors in 19 (76%) and 20 (80%) of the studies did not report inclusionary or exclusionary criteria, respectively. Exclusionary criteria included having a disability ( k  = 2, 8%), being a minority language speaker ( k  = 1, 4%), and having poor eye movement registration ( k  = 2, 8%). Twenty studies (80%) did not report the number of disabled participants included. The two (8%) that did included students with developmental dyslexia ( n  = 27 across the two studies; Andresen et al., 2019a , 2019b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ). The number of multilingual participants was reported in 15 studies (60%), with percentages ranging from 0% (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ; Florit, De Carli, et al., 2020 ) to 72% (Davis et al., 2017 ). Sixteen studies (64%) reported participants’ socioeconomic status. Of these, 14 reported that their samples were largely homogenous and from middle-class families. In the other two studies, participants came from lower socioeconomic families.

Features of Tasks, Measures, and Documents

In each study, participants performed a task requiring them to independently read a set of multiple documents. The most common task ( k  = 16, 64%) involved having participants read the documents for the purpose of writing an essay. These included writing arguments ( k  = 9, 36%), opinions ( k  = 1, 4%), or combinations of arguments and summaries/syntheses ( k  = 5, 20%). In other studies, participants answered verification questions ( k  = 6, 24%), oral open-ended questions ( k  = 2, 8%), multiple-choice questions ( k  = 1, 4%), or application questions ( k  = 1, 4%). In 16 of the studies (64%), participants were provided with information about the document source (e.g., author, publication, date).

The number of documents per set ranged from 2 to 10 (mean = 4.72, SD  = 1.86), with an average of 2.6 (SD = 0.54) at the elementary level and 5.25 (SD = 1.68) at the secondary. In several studies, participants read multiple sets of documents (e.g., Beker et al., 2019 ; Mason et al., 2020 ), bringing the total number of documents read between 2 and 40. In all the studies, the documents were informational rather than narrative. Most studies ( k  = 23, 92%) involved document sets that addressed socioscientific topics (e.g., human impact on climate change) and presented a combination of complementary and contrasting viewpoints ( k  = 18, 72%). Of the 20 (80%) studies that reported document format, nine (36%) used only digital documents, ten (40%) used only print documents, and one (4%) used both. Ten (40%) studies reported whether multimedia documents (e.g., text with image) were used. Of these, multimedia documents were used in six (24%) text only documents in four (16%). Seventeen studies (68%) reported efforts to evaluate text difficulty. In each case, a readability formula was used. Several also reported consulting with content-area experts in developing the texts.

Generally similar tasks, measures, and document formats were used at the elementary and secondary levels. For both levels, argumentative essays and inference verification questions were used to measure intertextual integration. However, application questions were used only at the elementary level and multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, and summary essays were used only at the secondary level. At both levels, print and digital formatted documents were used. Finally, the average number of documents per set differed across these two developmental spans, with a mean 2.6 (SD = 0.55) at the elementary level and 5.25 (SD = 1.68) at the secondary level.

Associations with Individual Differences

Tables 2 – 4 report zero-order correlations between performance on measures of intertextual integration and measures of individual differences in language and literacy, cognition and metacognition, knowledge and beliefs, and motivation, emotion, and personality. Results are discussed in the following four sections. To avoid redundancy, we provide information about the participants (e.g., nationality, age, sample size) and measures only once for each study.

Language and Literacy

Eighteen studies (72%) examined associations among intertextual integration, language, and literacy (see Table  1 ). Single-document comprehension was the most studied ( k  = 12, 48%), followed by word-level reading ( k  = 6, 24%), and then a variety of other factors (e.g., strategy knowledge). In the following sections, we discuss results first for elementary- and then secondary-level participants.

Elementary-Level. Four studies (16%) examined associations between intertextual integration and literacy factors among elementary-level students. Three of these examined associations with single document comprehension. Beker et al., 2019 ) had fourth- and sixth-grade Dutch children ( n  = 105) read 20 brief (i.e., about eight sentences) expository text pairs (40 individual texts in total). In each pair, the second text contained an internal inconsistency. Across pairs, they randomly varied whether the first text contained an explanation that could help to resolve the inconsistency presented in the second text. To assess intertextual integration, they asked participants open-ended questions after every fourth pair of texts. They assessed single document comprehension by having participants answer multiple-choice questions about several brief texts. They found an association of r  = 0.39 ( p  < 0.001) between these two factors.

In two studies, Florit and colleagues (Florit, Cain, Mason, 2020 ; Florit et al. 2020 ) had Italian participants complete two multiple document tasks that each involved reading three texts about a socioscientific issue (e.g., “Are videogames beneficial?”) and then writing an argumentative essay (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ; Florit et al., 2020 ). They assessed single-document comprehension by having students answer inferential and literal questions about an informational text. Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) found associations of r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.15 ( p  < 0.05) between single document comprehension and intertextual integration for a sample of fourth- and fifth-grade students ( n  = 184).

With a separate sample of fourth-grade students ( n  = 94), Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) found associations of r  = 0.23 ( p  < 0.05) and r  = 0.47 ( p  < 0.01). In the same study, they also assessed students’ comprehension monitoring with a task that measured their ability to detect inconsistencies in 24 six-sentence texts. Correlations between comprehension monitoring and intertextual integration were r  = 0.22 ( p  < 0.05) and r  = 0.35 ( p  < 0.01).

Three studies involving Italian children also examined associations between word reading fluency and intertextual integration. Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) had fourth-grade students ( n  = 94) read 112 words and 48 non-words as quickly as they could; for their analyses, they combined scores from these two tasks. Correlations between word-level reading and intertextual integration were r  = 0.14 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.36 ( p  < 0.01). Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) tested a separate sample of four- and fifth-grade students ( n  = 184) with the same word-level reading and intertextual integration tasks, and found correlations of r  = 0.10 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.16 ( p  < 0.05). Finally, Raccanello et al. ( 2022 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.21 ( p  < 0.001) between fourth- and fifth-grade students’ ( n  = 334) word reading fluency and intertextual integration, as measured by an argumentative essay based on a document set.

Secondary-Level. Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations between intertextual integration and literacy factors among secondary-level students. Nine (36%) measured students’ single document comprehension, three of which were conducted by Bråten and colleagues and involved Norwegian students enrolled in college preparatory or prevocational courses. Bråten et al. ( 2018 ) had participants ( n  = 127) complete a cloze comprehension measure involving narrative and expository texts. They randomly divided students into two groups, each assigned to read a document set of ten texts about either climate change or nuclear power. To measure intertextual integration, they had students in both conditions write argumentative essays based on the document sets. Correlations between single document comprehension and intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.20 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.28 ( p  < 0.05).

Strømsø and Bråten ( 2009 ) had participants ( n  = 282) read a document set comprising seven texts on different aspects of climate change. After reading, they assessed students’ single document comprehension for each of texts using sentence and intratextual inference verification measures; scores were summed across texts for analyses. They also had students complete an intertextual inference verification task based on the document set that they had read. They found an association of r  = 0.52 ( p  < 0.001) between intertextual integration and sentence verification (single document comprehension), and a correlation of r  = 0.54 ( p  < 0.001) between intertextual integration and intratextual integration (single document comprehension). Finally, Strømsø et al. ( 2010 ) had participants ( n  = 233) complete intratextual and intertextual inference verification tasks based on the same set of seven text documents and found a correlation of r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01) between them.

de Ruyter ( 2020 ) had Dutch prevocational students ( n  = 83) write argumentative essays after reading a set of four digital documents. They measured students’ single document comprehension by having them read five texts, and after each, answering a series of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. They found a correlation of r  = 0.28 ( p  < 0.05) between these two variables. Finally, Wang et al. ( 2021 ) had US ninth-twelfth students’ ( n  = 1107) read four digital text documents and measured their intertextual integration with a multiple-choice and yes/no questions. To measure single document comprehension, they had students read 10 short passages and answer questions about key ideas and details for each. The correlation between these two variables was r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01).

Four studies examined associations among single document comprehension and intertextual integration among seventh-grade students. Mason and colleagues conducted three with Italian students (samples ranged from 47 to 104). In each, they used a multiple-choice task to measure single document comprehension and an argumentative essay task to measure intertextual integration. Across these studies, correlations between these two variables ranged from r  = 0.18 ( p  > 0.05; Mason et al., 2017 ) to r  = 0.48 ( p  < 0.01; Mason et al., 2020 ). Mason et al. ( 2017 ) also measured single document comprehension with a sentence verification task and found a correlation of r  = 0.13 ( p  > 0.05) between it and intertextual integration. Forzani ( 2016 ) had US seventh-grade students’ ( n  = 1434) complete an online research and comprehension assessment. As part of this, they assessed students’ ability to synthesize information (i.e., intertextual integration) by writing argumentative essays. They also assessed students’ single document comprehension by having them read several brief passages and answer multiple-choice questions about them. The correlation between single document comprehension and intertextual integration was r  = 0.37 ( p  < 0.01).

Six studies examined associations among word-level reading and intertextual integration. In each, researchers used measures that involved reading from word lists with accuracy and speed (i.e., fluency). Three involved Norwegian students and used a word chain task involving 360 words arranged in 30 rows. Across these studies, correlations between word chain reading (i.e., word-level reading) and intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.16 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.43 ( p  < 0.001). Bråten et al., ( 2013a , 2013b ) had tenth-grade students ( n  = 65) read six digital text documents and assessed their intertextual integration by having them write brief essays. The correlation between word-level reading and intertextual integration was r  = 0.43 ( p  < 0.001). Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ) also examined the association between word-level reading and intertextual integration with tenth-grade students ( n  = 44), half of whom were neurotypical in reading (i.e., > 20th percentile on a national standardized reading test) and half of whom had school-based diagnoses of developmental dyslexia. Participants viewed three webpages containing information presented through video, text, and pictures. Intertextual integration was assessed by having students orally respond to two open-ended questions about the document set. They found an association of r  = 0.45 ( p  < 0.01) between word reading and intertextual integration for the entire sample. Finally, Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) had college preparatory students ( n  = 59) read six printed documents about assessed intertextual integration with an inference verification task. The correlation between this and word-level reading was r  = 0.22 ( p  > 0.05).

Beyond word level reading and single document comprehension, researchers also examined associations between intertextual and several additional language and literacy skills. For example, Davis et al. ( 2017 ) examined associations among US fifth- to seventh-grade students’ intertextual integration and receptive ( r  = 0.47, p  < 0.01) and productive syntax ( r  = 0.24, p  < 0.05). To measure intertextual integration, they had students read two informational texts about a scientific issue and then complete a sentence and inference verification task. Wang et al. ( 2021 ) found an association of r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01) between US ninth-twelfth grade students’ sentence processing and intertextual integration.

Finally, Cheong et al. ( 2019 ) examined the association between intertextual integration and written composition among secondary-level Hong Konger students ( n  = 415). They presented students with two, parallel-structured multiple documents tasks in Chinese (L1) and English (L2). For both tasks, students read six documents. They measured intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese and English with inference verification and argumentative essay tasks, respectively. Associations between Chinese intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese ( r  = 0.41, p  < 0.01) and English ( r  = 0.28, p  < 0.05) were similar to associated between English intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese ( r  = 0.30, p  < 0.01) and English ( r  = 0.41, p  < . 01).

Cognition and Metacognition

Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations between intertextual integration, cognition, and metacognition (Table  2 ). Of these, five (20%) examined associations between verbal working memory and intertextual integration, with correlations ranging from r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.538 ( p  < 0.001). Two were conducted with elementary-level students. Beker et al. ( 2019 ) measured Dutch fourth- and sixth-grade children’s ( n  = 105) verbal working memory with a task adapted from Daneman and Carpenter ( 1980 ). They had students listen to sets of unrelated sentences, answer a comprehension-related question about one of them, and then recall the last word of each sentence. Performance on this task correlated r  = 0.13 ( p  = 0.183) with intertextual integration, as measured by the open-ended questions task described in the preceding section (Beker et al., 2019 ). Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) measured fourth-grade Italian students’ ( n  = 94) verbal working memory with a task involving six lists of nouns. For each list, students had to remember and write down the nouns representing the three smallest objects in the list, and in the order in which they were presented. Correlations between performance on this working memory task and the two intertextual integration measures described above were r  = 0.18 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.22 ( p  < 0.05).

The three studies that examined associations between intertextual integration and verbal working memory with secondary-level students, all measured working memory with a version of a task developed by Daneman and Carpenter ( 1980 ). As described above for Beker et al. ( 2019 ), Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ), and Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) had students listen to sets of sentences, answer comprehension-related questions about them, and then recall the last word of each. Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ) found a correlation of r  = 0.54 ( p  < 0.001) between Norwegian tenth-grade students’ ( n  = 44) working memory and intertextual integration, as measured with the oral opened-ended questions task described in the preceding section. Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.29 ( p  < 0.05) between Norwegian secondary-level students ( n  = 59) working memory and intertextual integration, as measured by the inference verification task also described above. Mason et al. ( 2017 ) adapted the working memory task to have students read the sentences themselves. They found that performance on this task correlated r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) with intertextual integration, as measured with the previously described argumentative essay task.

Twelve (48%) studies examined associations between metacognition and intertextual integration. Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) measured Italian fourth-grade children’s ( n  = 94) comprehension monitoring by assessing their ability to detect inconsistencies in stories with and without inconsistent sentences. They found that comprehension monitoring was weakly but significantly associated with intertextual integration ( r s = 0.22–0.35, p  < 0.05), as measured by two essay tasks. Braasch et al. ( 2022 ) examined the association between sixth-grade US students ( n  = 54) metacognitive awareness and an argumentative essay task. They measured metacognitive awareness by having students rate items designed to measure their knowledge and regulation of cognition. They found that metacognitive scores were weakly correlated with students’ inclusion of belief-consistent ( r  = 0.11 ( p  > 0.05) and belief-inconsistent ( r  = 0.10 ( p  > 0.05) ideas in their writing. Davis et al. ( 2017 ) examined associations between intertextual integration and fifth- through seventh-grade US students’ ( n  = 83) comprehension strategy knowledge (i.e., predicting and verifying predictions, previewing, purpose setting, self-questioning, using background knowledge, and summarizing; r  = 0.23, p  < 0.05) and strategy awareness/use ( r  = 0.05, p  > 0.05). Bråten et al. ( 2014 ) surveyed Norwegian students in the first year of secondary school ( n  = 279) about their use of strategies for comparing, contrasting, and integrating multiple texts, finding a correlation of r  = 0.36 ( p  < 0.001) between this and intertextual integration. Cheong et al. ( 2019 ) surveyed students’ use of self-regulatory, discourse synthesis, and test-taking strategies before, during, and after writing. They found this to be weakly correlated with intertextual integration measured in Chinese ( r  = 0.10, p  < 0.05) and English ( r  = 0.19, p  < 0.01). Finally, Stang Lund et al. ( 2019 ) assessed secondary-level Norwegian students’ ( n  = 86) knowledge and potential use of reading strategies, such as how they would deal with information about scientific issues presented in various media sources. They found a moderate association between students’ comprehension strategies and their intertextual integration ( r  = 0.29, p  < 0.05), as measured by a verification task.

Ten (40%) studies examined associations between intertextual integration and document sourcing skills. Only one involved students at the elementary level (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). In that study, students’ essays were coded for intertextual integration and the inclusion of source-content links, with the correlation between them being r  = 0.24 ( p  < 0.05). A variety of sourcing dimensions were examined in nine (36%) studies involving secondary-level students. These included students’ source selection (Bråten et al., 2018 ; Forzani, 2016 ), source evaluation (Braasch et al., 2014 ; Forzani, 2016 ), links made between sources and their contents (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2018 ), and memory for sources (Stang Lund et al., 2019 ; Strømsø et al., 2010 ). Intertextual integration was measured with essay tasks in six of these studies and with verification tasks in three. Associations between intertextual integration and sourcing were all positive and small to moderate in magnitude (range = 0.05 to 41).

Knowledge and Beliefs

Nineteen studies (76%) examined associations among students’ knowledge, beliefs, and intertextual integration (Table  3 ). At the elementary level, Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) assessed Italian fourth- and fifth-grade students’ topic knowledge, general vocabulary knowledge, and theory of mind. Correlations with their two measures of intertextual integration were as follows: topic knowledge = 0.08–0.15, vocabulary = 0.24–0.27, and theory of mind = 0.15–0.26. Davis et al. ( 2017 ) assessed US fifth- through seventh-grade students’ topic knowledge, general vocabulary knowledge, morphological knowledge, and two measures of epistemic beliefs: stability and structure of knowledge. Associations among intertextual integration and performance on these measures were as follows: topic knowledge = 0.42 ( p  < 0.01), general vocabulary knowledge = 0.56 ( p  < 0.01), morphological knowledge = 0.52 ( p  < 0.01), stability of knowledge =  − 0.10 ( p  > 0.05), and structure of knowledge = 0.27 ( p  < 0.05).

At the secondary level, researchers examined associations among intertextual integration and domain knowledge ( k  = 1), topic knowledge ( k  = 18), epistemic beliefs ( k  = 7), and vocabulary and morphological knowledge ( k  = 2). Wang et al. ( 2021 ) assessed US ninth-twelfth grade students’ domain knowledge with 25-item multiple-choice tests in history and science. Correlations with performance on an intertextual integration task about American football were r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01) for history and r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01) for science. They also assessed students’ knowledge of football, which was slightly less correlated with intertextual integration ( r  = 0.50, p  < 0.01). Topic knowledge was assessed in ten studies with multiple-choice tests (Andresen et al., 2019a , 2019b ; Bråten et al., 2014 , 2018 , 2013a , 2013b ; Stang Lund et al., 2017 ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ; Strømsø et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), in five with open-ended questions (Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017 ; Braasch et al., 2014 ; Mason, 2018 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2020 ), in one with a verification task (Davis et al., 2017 ), and in two with rating scales (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Griffin et al., 2012 ). Correlations with intertextual integration ranged between − 0.03 (Strømsø et al., 2016 ) and 0.50 (Wang et al., 2021 ). Given the variation in how topic knowledge and intertextual integration were measured across these studies, patterns in the magnitude of these correlations are unclear. Moreover, the smallest and largest correlations were both found with secondary-level students and used multiple-choice tests to measure topic knowledge (Strømsø et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). However, these studies differed in the number (4 vs. 5) and format (digital vs. print) of the texts, the topic (American football vs. health), language (American English vs. Norwegian), and how intertextual integration was measured (multiple choice vs. essay).

Additionally, two studies (8%) examined associations among intertextual integration, vocabulary, and morphological knowledge. Results from Davis et al. ( 2017 ) were discussed above. Wang et al. ( 2021 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.50 ( p  < 0.01) between intertextual integration and morphology and r  = 0.54 ( p  > 0.05) with vocabulary.

Epistemic beliefs were assessed in eight studies (32%) with a variety of methods. For example, Barzilai and Ka’adan ( 2017 ) used a scenario-based approach to assess students’ topic-specific perspectives (i.e., absolutism, multiplism, evaluativism) about the nature, sources, certainty, validity, and justification of knowledge. In contrast, Strømsø et al. ( 2016 ) assessed students’ beliefs in the justification of knowledge by personal accounts, authority figures, or multiple sources. Across the studies, correlations with intertextual integration ranged from r  =  − 0.04 (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ) to r  =  − 0.43 (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ). This wide range is expected, as the direction and magnitude of association is thought to vary by belief type (Bråten et al., 2011 ).

Motivation, Emotion, and Personality

Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations among students’ intertextual integration, motivation ( k  = 11), emotion ( k  = 4), and personality ( k  = 2) (Table  4 ). At the elementary-level, Raccanello et al. ( 2022 ) examined how Italian fourth- and fifth-grade students’ performance on an intertextual integration task was associated with how they valued the task ( r  = 0.18, p  < 0.01) and their level of boredom with it ( r  =  − 0.05, p  > 0.05). At the secondary level, studies examined associations between intertextual integration and several dimensions of motivation: self-efficacy (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ), task value (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ), effort (de Ruyter, 2020 ), engagement (de Ruyter, 2020 ), and interest (Bråten et al., 2014 , 2018 ; Griffin et al., 2012 ; Stang Lund et al., 2017 ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ; Strømsø et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Correlations were all small and in the range of − 0.04 to 0.39.

Three studies (12%), all involving Italian seventh-grade students, examined associations between intertextual integration and emotion (Mason, 2018 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2020 ). In each study, students’ emotional reactivity was assessed during reading with a heart rate monitor. Correlations with intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.02 ( p  > 0.05; Mason et al., 2017 ) to r  = 0.25 ( p  > 0.05; Mason, 2018 ). Two studies, both with secondary-level Norwegian students, examined associations between intertextual integration and personality. Bråten et al. ( 2014 ) found an association of r  = 0.14 between students’ need for cognition and their intertextual integration performance. Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) found an association of r  = 0.02 ( p  > 0.05) between intertextual integration and an entity theory of intelligence (i.e., fixed mindset); the correlation with an incremental theory of intelligence (i.e., growth mindset) was r  = 0.19 ( p  > 0.05).

We begin this section by discussing characteristics of the participants that have been studied (research question 1) and features of the tasks and materials that have been used (research question 2). We then discuss what types of individual differences factors have been studied (research question 3) and what has been learned about their associations with intertextual integration (research question 4). We will then conclude by offering four recommendations for future research.

Research Questions 1 and 2: Participant Characteristics and Materials

Given the many potential ways that multiple document comprehension has been studied, we were interested in first taking stock of the types of participants, tasks, measures, and documents that have been used. As predicted, there was wide variation in each of these parameters. However, certain grade levels, tasks, measures, and types of documents were examined more frequently than others.

As expected, we located more studies involving secondary- than elementary-level participants. At the secondary level, participants ranged from grade 6 to 12. Although it was encouraging to find that intertextual integration had been studied with elementary-level children, only five did so and none involved children below grade 4. Furthermore, few authors reported clear inclusion/exclusionary criteria and demographic information.

Nonetheless, several findings are important to discuss. First, individuals with disabilities were clearly included in only two studies, both of which were at the secondary level. Moreover, in several studies, disabled participants were purposely excluded. Second, in contrast to most other reading research (Share, 2008 ), relatively few studies involved English L1 participants. Finally, of the few studies that reported information about participants’ socioeconomic status, most were from middle-class backgrounds. We were limited, though, by our decision to include only studies reported in English. It may studies reported in other languages include more diverse populations. Nonetheless, we can draw two clear conclusions. First, improved demographic reporting is needed to better understand to whom these findings may apply. Second, efforts are needed to study more diverse populations, to include individuals with disabilities, those from different socioeconomic strata, individuals from non-Western societies, and those who speak multiple languages.

Tasks, Measures, and Documents

Consistent with Primor and Katzir’s ( 2018 ) findings, we found that intertextual integration was measured in a variety of ways, with essay tasks being the most widely used. The reason for this is unclear. It may be that essays are viewed as a particularly valid form of assessment. However, few studies clearly defined intertextual integration or provided a justification for why and how they selected their measure(s). Perhaps as a result, even with the stringent inclusion criteria that we set, we are not confident that the same construct was measured in each of the studies. For the field to advance, work is needed to better define intertextual integration and to develop more standardized and comparable methods for measuring it (Flake & Fried, 2020 ).

In contrast, there was consistency in the genres, structures, and topics of the documents. This allowed for much clearer comparisons across studies, particularly when considering associations with topic, domain, and disciplinary knowledge. Interestingly, the documents were nearly evenly split between print and digital formats. Although print documents still have a place in formal educational settings, they are quickly being replaced by digital ones. There is a pressing need, then, to better understand how young readers process and comprehend information distributed across multiple digital documents.

Research Questions 3 and 4: Individual Differences Factors and Intertextual Integration

In research questions 2 and 4, we asked what types of individual differences factors had been examined and the direction and strength of their associations with intertextual integration. As predicted, a wide range of individual differences factors had indeed been examined. However, few appeared in more than one study. Therefore, although nearly all were positively correlated with intertextual integration, variation in the samples, tasks, measures, and documents greatly limit what can be concluded about these relations.

Language and literacy were investigated in 72% ( k  = 18) of the studies. This was somewhat unexpected; although language and literacy are acknowledged as an obviously important factor in intertextual integration, they have received less attention than other factors in in frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use (see Table A1 ). This is likely because most theorizing has been based on secondary, undergraduate, and adult readers, for whom word-level reading and single document comprehension skills are likely assumed to be well developed. Nonetheless, it would appear safe to assume that intertextual integration depends on both skillsets.

Only six studies examined word-level reading skills. Results indicated small associations with intertextual integration (0.14 to 0.36) in the upper elementary grades and small to moderate associations (0.22 to 0.45) at the secondary level. Word-level reading has been clearly shown to affect single document comprehension performance (Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ). Although these six studies are not much to draw strong conclusions from, they do suggest a role for word-level reading in intertextual integration as well. Interestingly, the three elementary-level studies were conducted in Italian. In comparison to English, Italian has a relatively transparent alphabetic writing system (i.e., clear and consistent mappings between units of sound and print), which on average, proves easier for learning to read and write (Job et al., 2006 ). The three secondary-level studies were conducted in English and Norwegian, which in comparison to Italian, have considerably more opaque alphabetic systems (Hagtvet et al., 2006 ; Perfetti & Harris, 2017 ). Consequently, in addition to developmental differences, these writing system differences further complicate how we might interpret the results.

Across the 12 (48%) studies that examined single document comprehension, the magnitude of associations with intertextual integration ranged widely (0.06 to 0.57). A variety of factors undoubtedly account for this variation. Among them, the different ways that both constructs were measured likely played a role. For example, the smallest association was found in a study involving fourth- and fifth-grade Italian students (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). Intertextual integration was assessed with an argumentative essay task and single document comprehension with a standardized measure of inferential and literal questions. In the two studies with the largest associations (Strømsø et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), there was much closer alignment between the single and multiple document comprehension measures. In both studies, for example, the single document comprehension and intertextual integration measures involved texts written about the same topics and used the same response formats. In one of the studies (Strømsø et al., 2010 ), the same texts were even used for both measures. Different approaches to measuring single document comprehension tap different underlying skills (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 ; Keenan et al., 2008 ), and therefore, single indicators of single document comprehension should be not assumed to be interchangeable (Clemens & Fuchs, 2022 ). The same likely holds for measures of intertextual integration, which introduce even greater complexity. In sum, we can conclude from these results only that there is emerging evidence of associations between literacy skills—both word-level and comprehension focused—and intertextual integration.

Given the complexity of involved with intertextual integration, many cognitive and metacognitive skills have been hypothesized to play important roles (Follmer & Tise, 2022 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ; see also Table A1 ). Cognition and metacognition were examined in a little over half (56%, k  = 14) of the studies, with cognition examined in five (20%) and metacognition in nine (36%).

From among the multitude of cognitive variables (e.g., working memory, attention, intelligence) and operations (e.g., searching, monitoring, assembling, rehearsing, translating; Winne, 2018 ) that have been discussed within the multiple document literature, only verbal working memory was examined in these studies. Across the studies, associations between verbal working memory and intertextual ranged widely from r  = 0.05 to r  = 0.54. Although similar methods were used to measure verbal working memory, the number of studies was small and there was wide variation in the sampled populations, documents, and tasks. Accordingly, the results provide little insight into how individual differences in cognition—broadly or narrowly defined—are associated with intertextual integration. This stands in stark contrast to the extensive body of work that has examined associations between cognition, word-level reading, and single document comprehension (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2018 ; Follmer, 2018 ; Peng et al., 2018 , 2022 ).

Metacognition was examined in 12 (48%) of the studies. In two of these, metacognitive strategy knowledge was assessed (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Davis et al., 2017 ), with results showing small associations with intertextual integration. Results were mixed, though, for the three that examined metacognitive strategy use. In one study, the association between strategy use and intertextual integration was small and insignificant (Davis et al., 2017 ), However, in the other two, the relations were both moderate and signification (Bråten et al., 2014 ; Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). These results suggest that while knowledge of metacognitive strategies is unrelated to intertextual integration, actual metacognitive strategy use may be. However, with only four studies—and large differences in the populations and materials used among them—any conclusions are at best tentative.

Sourcing skills were examined in ten studies (40%). As noted above, a variety of sourcing skills were examined, to include source selection, source evaluation, source-content links, and source memory. Results ranged from almost no association ( r  = 0.05) to one of moderate magnitude ( r  = 0.41). This wide range is likely due to variation in the dimensions of sourcing that were examined, the different ways intertextual integration was measured, and differences in the populations that were sampled. In sum, it appears that various dimensions of sourcing may be differentially associated with intertextual integration.

Knowledge and beliefs appeared in 19 studies (76%), the most frequent of the four individual differences categories. Correlations with intertextual integration ranged widely (− 0.39 to 0.57). The bulk of studies involved secondary-level participants and examined associations between topic/domain knowledge and intertextual integration. Vocabulary and morphological knowledge were examined in four studies (16%). Various dimensions of knowledge, spanning from word to disciplinary, have been discussed extensively in theories of single and multiple document comprehension (Alexander, 2005 ; Goldman et al., 2016 ; Kintsch, 1988 ; Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ). As Kintsch ( 1974 , p. 10) observed, for example, “understanding a text…consists of assimilating it with one’s general store of knowledge…[s]ince every person’s knowledge and experience is somewhat different…the way in which different people understand the same text may not always be the same.” Knowledge in its various forms is generally understood to facilitate comprehension and learning (Ackerman, 1991 ; Alexander et al., 1994 ; Cabell & Hwang, 2020 ; Hwang et al., 2022 ). However, in certain cases, it can be an impediment (Simonsmeier et al., 2022 ). For instance, one’s knowledge of a topic can stand stubbornly in the way of learning new concepts (Vosniadou, 1992 ). Furthermore, possessing relevant knowledge does not ensure that it will be effectively used to aid comprehension. Indeed, Wolfe and Goldman ( 2005 ) found that some adolescents sometimes use their background knowledge to make irrelevant elaborations that do help in building a coherent multiple document representation.

As many have noted, there is unfortunately little consistency in how knowledge is conceptualized, defined, and measured (Alexander et al., 1991 ; McCarthy & McNamara, 2021 ; Murphy et al., 2012 , 2018 ). This was certainly what we found. Although the bulk of studies examined topic knowledge, this was done in a variety of ways. Moreover, the specific topics that were examined varied across studies. It is unclear, then, how comparable scores from these different measures may be. Additionally, few studies examined more than one dimension of knowledge. In any study, it is perhaps impossible to measure the full extent of a single domain or discipline much less multiple. However, the narrow focus on topic knowledge in this literature provides little insight into how other dimensions (e.g., domain, disciplinary) may influence intertextual integration. Nonetheless, it appears from these studies that knowing something of the documents’ topic, domain, or discipline is associated with better intertextual integration.

Epistemic beliefs were examined in seven studies (28%). Much research has shown that epistemic beliefs are an important factor in learning (Mason, 2010 ) and that variation in them is associated with literacy performance (Bråten et al., 2016 ; Lee et al., 2016 ). This may be the case particularly when engaging with multiple documents of varying quality and perspectives (Bråten et al., 2011 ; Strømsø & Kammerer, 2016 ). Consistent with previous research (Bråten et al., 2011 ), results indicated that endorsing certain beliefs is associated with better intertextual integration than others. For example, Davis et al. ( 2017 ) found that the belief that knowledge is singular and absolute was more weakly associated with intertextual integration ( r  =  − 0.10) than the belief that there are multiple forms of knowledge but that certain forms are more valid than others ( r  = 0.27). There were similar patterns in several of the other studies (Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017 ; Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ). Using a slightly different framework, Bråten et al., ( 2013a , 2013b ) found that intertextual integration was negatively associated with beliefs that knowledge is justified by personal knowledge (− 0.43) and authority (− 0.08), but positively associated with the belief that it is justified by multiple sources (0.17). In sum, whereas absolutist beliefs about knowledge (i.e., “knowledge come from an external source and is certain,” Kuhn, 1999 , p. 23) appear to be negatively associated with intertextual integration, multiplist or evaluative beliefs (“knowledge comes from human minds and is uncertain,” Kuhn, 1999 , p. 23) appear to be positively correlated. However, due to the variability in how epistemic beliefs were measured and considerable differences in the tasks, document sets, and participants involved, more research is needed to confirm the robustness of these findings. It is important to also note that in addition to individual differences, beliefs can vary across cultures (Buehl, 2008 ). Further research is therefore needed to systematically examine how epistemic beliefs may shape multiple document use and comprehension across different conditions, points in development, and cultural contexts.

The final category represents a broad mixture of affective processes and personality variables. Motivational factors (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, task value) appeared the most frequently ( k  = 11, 44%). Whereas there is no evidence that self-efficacy is meaningfully associated with intertextual integration (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ), several studies reported small to moderate associations with interest and task value. As has become a common theme in this review, wide variation in the tasks, documents, and participants renders what can be claimed about any potential patterns unclear.

Emotion was examined in three studies (12%), all with Italian seventh-grade participants, representing a rare case of systematic replication. Correlations for these three studies ranged from − 0.28 to 0.02. Not much can be concluded from this other than that certain emotions, such as boredom, appear to be negatively associated with intertextual integration. Future work should examine how motivation and emotion interact with specific types of documents and tasks over microperiods (e.g., minutes, hours) and macroperiods (e.g., days, months, years) of development (e.g., Neugebauer & Gilmour, 2020 ).

Personality was examined in only two studies (8%), both of which involved Norwegian secondary-level participants. Given that they measured different facets of personality, not much can be said beyond what is reported in the individual studies. Although personality is a major branch of psychology (Burger, 2015 ), and has been shown be associated with a broad range of human functioning (Anglim et al., 2022 ; Komarraju et al., 2011 ), it has not be a topic of much interest in reading research. The small correlations observed in these two studies do not inspire much confidence that this is a promising area for much further investigation.

General Discussion

Much has been proposed about the roles that various individual differences factors play in intertextual integration (see Table A1 ). However, much of this theorizing has been based on undergraduate and adult readers. It is unclear, then, how existing conceptualizations may apply to younger readers. In this review, we did not attempt to answer that question. Rather, we examined the nature, features, and volume of research that has examined associations between individual differences and intertextual integration. These associations are shown in Fig.  3 with an evidence gap map (Polanin et al., 2022 ). The map reveals that many of the factors specified in frameworks, theories, and models listed in Table A1 have been examined alongside intertextual integration with K-12 students. Noticeably, though, the coverage is uneven and incomplete. This greatly limits what can be concluded about the reliability and generalizability of these findings. Indeed, even in the two-dimensional map, we can see that many cells are blank and that few are shaded darker than the lightest tone. Were dimensions added for contexts, tasks, documents, and additional participant characteristics, the map would reveal even sparser coverage. Although there are few fields for which such a map would be fully darkened, it is clear far more research is needed.

Evidence gap map of associations among individual difference factors and intertextual integration. Shading corresponds to the number of studies that have examined an association between a particular individual differences factor (listed along the vertical axis) and intertextual integration at particular grade level (listed along the horizontal axis). As the number of studies increases, the shading darkens. White cells indicate that no study has examined the association between that particular factor and intertextual integration at that particular grade level. Studies that involved unspecified secondary-level students are not represented. SD, single document. ESs, effect sizes (i.e., zero-order correlation coefficients)

Recommendations

As for how the field might productively advance, we offer four recommendations. First, as has been observed for the broader social sciences (Shrout & Rodgers, 2018 ), more replication is needed. Indeed, as we have noted throughout this review, no associations have been studied under similar enough conditions to discern reliable patterns. Moreover, none of the factors reviewed have been studied across the full span of K-12 development. To build a fuller and more reliable understanding of how individual differences are associated with intertextual integration, a program of replicated research is needed that carefully examines relations among specific factors across the K-12 developmental span with well specified populations and comparable tasks, measures, and document sets.

Our second recommendation is for greater attention is needed to how intertextual integration is measured. There are several examples in the literature of well-validated measures of intertextual integration and multiple document use more broadly (Goldman et al., 2013 ; Hastings et al., 2012 ; Leu et al., 2015 ). However, most of the studies in this review used unvalidated measures, with little attention matters of dimensionality, reliability, or validity. These issues are characteristic of the broader psychological field (Flake & Fried, 2020 ). Although developing a measure involves many considerations (Lane et al., 2016 ), we will focus here on four points that have gone largely unaddressed.

First, research is needed to examine the dimensionality of intertextual integration. The definition we supplied in the introduction indicates that multiple subprocesses may be involved. In all the studies we reviewed, though, intertextual integration was treated as unidimensional. However, efforts generally were not made to test this assumption. Moving forward, this should be a priority. Care should also be taken to ensure that measures are invariant across participant subgroups, to ensure that individual items are unbiased, and that tests and items are well calibrated for their targeted populations. Second, greater attention is needed to score reliability. Although many of the studies reported internal consistency estimates, few considered other types of reliability (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014 ). Moreover, some of the measures suffered from poor internal consistency. The implications of this are not trivial. For the simple bivariate relations examined in this review, measurement error can attenuate effects. In multivariate models, the effects are less predictable (Bollen, 1989 ). Accordingly, developing measures that produce reliable scores is imperative. Third, it will be important to consider the validity of different types of intertextual integration measures (e.g., inference verification, essays. That is, are certain measures better at capturing intertextual integration than others? Furthermore, how should performance on different measures be interpreted? Finally, and related to our third recommendation, research is needed to understand which measures are best suited for assessing intertextual integration at different points in development and for tracking short- and long-term growth.

Our third recommendation is for research examining the precursors and early development of intertextual integration. We found only five studies that involved elementary-level participants, and none with children below grade 4. It is possible that the complex reasoning involved in many multiple document tasks may be viewed as too challenging for young children. However, current instructional standards make it clear that beginning in kindergarten, children are expected to engage with multiple documents for a variety of purposes (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ). Although this initially involves being read multiple documents, the expectations quickly shift to children themselves reading, searching for, selecting, evaluating, and integrating multiple documents. Current theories and empirical findings provide little insight into how children first develop these skills and the factors that give rise to early and perhaps ongoing performance differences.

A large body of work has shown that even preschool-aged children can adopt a critical stance when presented with information from multiple informants (for reviews, see Harris et al., 2018 ; Mills, 2013 ). This work has yet to involve textual sources and often requires participants to select the testimony from one of several informants rather than to integrate information from among them. Nonetheless, the insights garnered from research on the early development of source memory and evaluation may provide an entry point into understanding how children later develop multiple document use skills.

Young children are already exposed to multiple text documents in many early literacy programs. Take for instance a first-grade lesson from a language arts curriculum (Author, 2013 ) used in approximately 20% of US schools (Kaufman et al., 2017 ). In the lesson, children are read different versions of the same fable and are then asked to compare them (Author, 2013 ). In other programs, young children are read multiple informational texts on the same topic (Kim et al., 2021 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2014 ). There is not an explicit focus in these programs on sourcing or intertextual integration. However, attention to these skills could easily be incorporated. Such research could provide useful insights into the early development of intertextual integration, particularly if studied alongside other literacy, cognitive, and affective factors.

Our fourth and final recommendation is to develop more formalized theories Footnote 1 of intertextual integration. The proposals listed in Table A1 have proven useful for guiding and interpreting research on the role that individual differences play in shaping intertextual integration. Indeed, many have proposed how particular factors (e.g., working memory) are involved in forming intertextual representations, with some offering hypotheses about the direction and general magnitude of these relations. However, these verbal theories are best suited for significance testing, which alone cannot corroborate a theory (Meehl, 1978 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ). Greater specificity is needed for more risky tests that could falsify or advance a theory (Frankenhuis et al., 2023 ; Gershman, 2019 ; Meehl, 1978 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ).

Formal theories and models have been used extensively in research on word-level reading and to a lesser extent on single-document comprehension (Goldman et al., 2007 ; Reichle, 2021 ). This approach has proven critical for testing how specific factors (e.g., phonological processing, background knowledge) are associated with reading (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999 ; Van Den Broek et al., 1996 ) and for understanding psychological and inter-agent processes more generally (Sun et al., 2005 ). Similar advantages may be found in developing formalized theories of intertextual integration and multiple document use. For instance, a formalized theory of intertextual integration could be used to construct a computational model. It would then be possible to test the effects of particular individual differences factors through experimental manipulations with actual and simulated data (Goldman et al., 2007 ; J. A. Greene, 2022 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ). Such work might provide useful insights into key pressure points in the processes and development of intertextual integration that could be targeted for assessment and intervention. To these ends, we recommend supplementing the proposals listed in Table A1 with formalized theories that more clearly state their constraints and explicate the circumstances under which they may be falsified.

Limitations

As with any study, this review is limited by several factors. First, although we placed no restrictions on the types of individual differences included, we adopted a much narrower approach than has been used in most previous reviews by focusing on only one component of multiple document comprehension (i.e., intertextual integration). Second, we examined only concurrent associations and included only studies that involved K-12 participants. In doing so, we omitted work that has examined other components (e.g., sourcing) and involved other populations. Furthermore, by examining only concurrent associations, we were unable to consider matters of causality, which is critical for an explanatory theory. However, we believe our approach provided for a more precise and measured assessment of findings relevant for K-12 students than has been offered in the past. Even with this more circumscribed approach, though, limitations within the literature made it difficult to find clear and reliable patterns.

In theorizing about how readers use and make sense of multiple documents, much has been hypothesized about the roles played by a wide range of cognitive and affective factors (see Table A1 ). We found that many of these have been examined in the context of K-12 students’ intertextual integration. However, much remains to be learned about how variation in them gives rise to differences in multiple document processing across the span of K-12 development. Although associations were generally positive and small to medium in magnitude, design and measurement issues greatly limit the conclusions we can draw. As Underwood ( 1975 ) noted, individual differences stand as, “…a critical test of theories as they are being born” (p. 130). We agree and believe that to better understand and ultimately improve multiple document comprehension among K-12 students, research is needed that (a) more systematically examines individual differences factors, (b) places a greater focus on early development, and (c) builds more formalized and testable theories.

A distinction is often made between formal theories and models (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020 ; Smaldino, 2023 ). A theory is generally regarded as more comprehensive than any specific model (Goldman et al., 2007 ). A formal differs from an informal theory in that it is implemented using formalisms such as mathematical equations or computer programs (Reichle, 2021 ; Smaldino, 2023 ).

References 

Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (2), 133–178.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print . The MIT Press.

Afflerbach, P. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context . Routledge.

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2014). Inaccuracy and reading in multiple text and Internet/hypertext environments. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 403–424). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9737.003.0024

Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3704_1

Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90 (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61 (3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061003315

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and non-linear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 201–252.

Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47 (4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511

Alexander, P., & Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2020). Relational reasoning: The bedrock of integration within and across multiple representations, documents, and perspectives. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, & P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives (pp. 401–424). Routledge.

Allen, G. (2022). Intertextuality (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a national of readers: The report of the commission on reading . The national Academy of Education, The National Institute of Education, The Center for the Study of Reading.

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2019). Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 32 (5), 1149–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., Salmerón, L., & Bråten, I. (2019). Processing and learning from multiple sources: A comparative case study of students with dyslexia working in a multiple source multimedia context. Frontline Learning Research, 7 (3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i3.451

Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (5–6), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000373

Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., Florit, E., & Mason, L. (2022). The role of individual differences in sourcing: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (2), 749–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09640-7

Author. (2013). EngageNY: Common core curriculum . Expeditionary Learning.

Baron, N. S. (2021). How We Read Now . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12 (2), 193–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99–116). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8

Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextualities: Volosinov, Bakhtin, literary theory, and literacy studies. In A. F. Ball & S. W. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 53–65). Cambridge University Press.

Beker, K., van den Broek, P., & Jolles, D. (2019). Children’s integration of information across texts: Reading processes and knowledge representations. Reading and Writing, 32 (3), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9879-9

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structual equations with latent variables . John Wiley & Sons.

Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219

Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Incremental theories of intelligence predict multiple document comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 31 , 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.012

Braasch, J. L. G., Haverkamp, Y. E., Latini, N., Shaw, S., Arshad, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2022). Belief bias when adolescents read to comprehend multiple conflicting texts. Reading and Writing, 35 (8), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10262-w

Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of multiple source use . Routledge.

Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53 (4), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004

Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013a). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26 (3), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 879–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2

Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30 , 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of single and multiple texts. In P. P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 67–79). Routledge.

Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 41 (4), 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12247

Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L. G., & Salmerón, L. (2020). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts: New opportunities and new challenges. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research 5: 79–98. Routledge.

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence (pp. 209–234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Britt, M. A., Rouet, J., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading . Routledge.

van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2022). Reading comprehension I: Discourse. In The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 239–260). Wiley Blackwell.

Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 65–112). Springer.

Burger, J. M. (2015). Personality (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 801–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6

Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2021). KReC-MD: Knowledge revision with multiple documents. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y

Byrne, B. (1998). The foundation of literacy: The child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle . Psychology Press.

Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly , 55 (S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19 (1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., & Wen, H. (2019). Effects of intertextual processing on L2 integrated writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44 , 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.004

Cho, B.-Y. (2013). Adolescents’ constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical Internet reading task. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (4), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.49

Cho, B.-Y., Han, H., & Kucan, L. L. (2018). An exploratory study of middle-school learners’ historical reading in an internet environment. Reading and Writing, 31 (7), 1525–1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9847-4

Cho, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). The Guilford Press.

Clemens, N. H., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Commercially developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool’s gold? Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.415

Coiro, J. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302

Cumming, M. M., Bettini, E., & Chow, J. C. (2023). High-quality systematic literature reviews in special education: Promoting coherence, contextualization, generativity, and transparency. Exceptional Children , 001440292211465. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221146576

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Davis, D. S., Huang, B., & Yi, T. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed-methods examination of predictors and processes of multiple-text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.162

Drummey, A. B., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Developmental changes in source memory. Developmental Science, 5 (4), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00243

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

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

Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children’s single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders’ multiple-document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12288

Florit, E., De Carli, P., Giunti, G., & Mason, L. (2020). Advanced theory of mind uniquely contributes to children’s multiple-text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189 , 104708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104708

Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53 (1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295

Follmer, D. J., & Tise, J. (2022). Effects of an executive function-based text support on strategy use and comprehension–integration of conflicting informational texts. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10257-7

Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability . University of Connecticut.

Frankenhuis, W. E., Borsboom, D., Nettle, D., & Roisman, G. I. (2023). Formalizing theories of child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development , cdev.14020. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14020

Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Effects of context-induced processing operations on semantic information acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90007-9

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension . Ablex Publishing Company.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology and discourse . Routledge.

Gershman, S. J. (2019). How to never be wrong. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26 (1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1488-8

Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading . The MIT Press.

Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217

Goldman, S. R., Golden, R. M., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Why are computation models of text comprehension useful? In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 27–52). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027

Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading-from words to multiple texts (pp. 180–199). Routledge.

Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. D., Shanahan, C., & Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741

Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greene, S. (1993). The role of task in the development of academic thinking through reading and writing in a college history course. Research in the Teaching of English, 27 (1), 46–75.

Greene, J. A. (2022). What can educational psychology learn from, and contribute to, theory development scholarship? Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 3011–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09682-5

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The Role of CLEAR Thinking in Learning Science from Multiple-Document Inquiry Tasks., 1 , 16.

Hagtvet, B. E., Helland, T., & Lyster, S.-A. H. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Norwegian. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 15–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106 (3), 491–528.

Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710

Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Magliano, J. P., Goldman, S. R., & Lawless, K. (2012). Assessing the use of multiple sources in student essays. Behavior Research Methods, 44 (3), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0214-0

Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading . The MacMillan Company.

Hwang, H., Cabell, S. Q., & Joyner, R. E. (2022). Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (3), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Mulatti, C. (2006). The acquisition of literacy in Italian. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 105–120). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaufman, J., Davis, J., Wang, E., Thompson, L., Pane, J., Pfrommer, K., & Harris, M. (2017). Use of open educational resources in an era of common standards: A case study on the use of EngageNY. RAND Corporation . https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1773

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12 (3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279

Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2 , 434–456.

Kim, J. S., Relyea, J. E., Burkhauser, M. A., Scherer, E., & Rich, P. (2021). Improving elementary grade students’ science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6

Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163–182.

Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76 (6), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849.x

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (4), 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177186

Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26 (4–5), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710500285870

Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., & Haladyna, T. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of test development . Routledge.

Language and Reading Research Consortium, Pratt, A., & Logan, J. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary-grade classrooms: Impacts of the let’s know! Experimental Curriculum. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9275-1

Lee, C. D., Goldman, S. R., Levine, S., & Magliano, J. P. (2016). Epistemic cognition in literary reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 165–183). Routledge.

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind . Teachers College Press.

Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (4), 441–486. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1404_2

Lemke, J. L. (2004). Intertextuality and educational research. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 3–14). Information Age Publishing.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2019). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 319–346). Routledge.

Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52 (3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(91)90065-Z

List, A. (2020). Six questions regarding strategy use when learning from multiple texts. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, & M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of strategies and strategic processing (pp. 119–140). Routledge.

List, A. (2023). Social justice reasoning when students learn about social issues using multiple texts. Discourse Processes, 60 (4–5), 244–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197692

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54 (1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514

List, A., & Sun, Y. (2023). To clarity and beyond: Situating higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking in the literature on learning from multiple texts. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (2), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09756-y

List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58 , 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003

Mackey, M. (2020). Who reads what, in which formats, and why? In E. B. Moje, P. P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research 5: 99–115. Routledge.

Magliano, J. P., McCrudden, M. T., Rouet, J.-F., & Sabatini, J. (2018). The modern reader: Should changes to how we read affect research and theory? In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (pp. 343–361). Routledge.

Magliano, J. P., Talwar, A., Feller, D. P., Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2023). Exploring thresholds in the foundational skills for reading and comprehension outcomes in the context of postsecondary readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56 (1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221087387

Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading . Penguin Press.

Many, J. E. (1996). Patterns of selectivity in drawing on sources: Examining students’ use of intertextuality across literacy events. Reading Research and Instruction, 36 (1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079609558227

Many, J. E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G., & Mitchell, E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self-directed reading-writing-research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.2

Mason, L. (2010). Beliefs about knowledge and revision of knowledge: On the importance of epistemic beliefs for intentional conceptual change in elementary and middle school students. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 258–291). Cambridge University Press.

Mason, L. (2018). Multiplicity in the digital era: Processing and learning from multiple sources and modalities of instructional presentations. Learning and Instruction, 57 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.004

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Zaccoletti, S. (2017). Emotional reactivity and comprehension of multiple online texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 58 , 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.002

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Zaccoletti, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Webpage reading: Psychophysiological correlates of emotional arousal and regulation predict multiple-text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 87 , 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.020

Mason, L., Zaccoletti, S., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., Florit, E., & Goetz, T. (2020). Reading with the eyes and under the skin: Comprehending conflicting digital texts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36 (1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12399

McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56 (3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379

McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27 (3), 226. https://doi.org/10.2307/747793

McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46 (2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

McNamara, D. S., Watanabe, M., Huynh, L., McCarthy, K. S., Allen, L. K., & Magliano, J. P. (2023). Summarizing versus rereading multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 102238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102238

McWeeny, S., Choe, J., & Norton, E. (2021). SnowGlobe: An interactive search tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. [Computer software]. 10.17605/OSF.IO/U25RN

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

Mills, C. M. (2013). Knowing when to doubt: Developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49 (3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029500

Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., & Li, M. (2018). Knowledge and the model of domain learning. In H. Fives & D. L. Dinsmore (Eds.), The model of domain learning: Understanding the development of expertise (pp. 19–36). Routledge.

Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A., & Muis, K. R. (2012). Knowledge and knowing: The journey from philosophy and psychology to human learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. (pp. 189–226). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-008

National Assessment Governing Board. (2021). Reading framework for the 2026 National Assessment of Educational Progress . U.S. Department of Education.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history . National Council for the Social Studies.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing . American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.

National Governors Association, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects .

National Research Council. (2012a). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012b). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . National Academies Press.

Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2022). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Neugebauer, S. R., & Gilmour, A. F. (2020). The ups and downs of reading across content areas: The association between instruction and fluctuations in reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (2), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000373

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper . Cambridge University Press.

Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124

Peng, P., Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Lee, K., Wang, T., Wang, C., Luo, J., & Lin, J. (2022). A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language mediation mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (3–4), 227–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000361

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability . Oxford University Press.

Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. (2017). Learning to read in English. In L. Verhoeven & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 347–370). Cambridge University Press.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 5–35). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch1

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Polanin, J. R., Zhang, Q., Taylor, J. A., Williams, R. T., Joshi, M., & Burr, L. (2022). Evidence gap maps in education research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2139312

Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294

Raccanello, D., Florit, E., Brondino, M., Rodà, A., & Mason, L. (2022). Control and value appraisals and online multiple‐text comprehension in primary school: The mediating role of boredom and the moderating role of word‐reading fluency. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12448

Raphael, T. E., & Boyd, F. B. (1991). Synthesizing information from multiple sources: A descriptive study of elementary students’ perceptions and performance of discourse synthesis (Elementary Subjects Center 45). Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.

Reichle, E. D. (2021). Computational models of reading: A handbook . Oxford University Press.

Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968

Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., Fried, E. I., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16 (4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569162097469

Rott, S., & Gavin, B. (2015). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: A conceptual replication study of Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Greasser and Brodowinska (2012). CALICO Journal, 32 (2), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i2.25139

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015

Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52).

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Gabrielsen, E., Kaakinen, J., Richter, T., & Lennon, M. (2021). PIAAC Cycle 2 assessment framework: Literacy. In The assessment frameworks for cycle 2 of the programme for the international assessment of adult competencies . Organisation for Economic Co-Operation. https://doi.org/10.1787/4bc2342d-en

Rouet, J.-F. (2005). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Ruyter, S. (2020). The effect of the cooperative jigsaw method on multiple document reading comprehension for prevocational education [Master’s Thesis]. University of Twente.

Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Studies in written language and literacy (Vol. 17, pp. 91–120). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal

Saux, G., Britt, M. A., Vibert, N., & Rouet, J. (2021). Building mental models from multiple texts: How readers construct coherence from inconsistent sources. Language and Linguistics Compass , 15 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12409

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942

Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 231–250).

Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584

Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845

Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57 (1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700

Smaldino, P. E. (2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution . Princeton University Press.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension . Rand.

Sparks, J. R., & Deane, P. (2015). Cognitively based assessment of research and inquiry skills: Defining a key practice in the English language arts: Cognitively based assessment of research and inquiry skills. ETS Research Report Series, 2015 (2), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12082

Spivey, N. N. (1995). Written discourse: A constructivist perspective. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 313–329). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.771106

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). MIT Press.

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (4), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5

Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Memory for textual conflicts predicts sourcing when adolescents read multiple expository texts. Reading Psychology, 38 (4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1278417

Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32 (2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z

Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864

Strømsø, H. I., & Kammerer, Y. (2016). Epistemic cognition and reading for understanding in the internet age. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 230–246). Routledge.

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20 (3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). Beliefs about justification for knowing when ethnic majority and ethnic minority students read multiple conflicting documents. Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920080

Sun, R., Coward, L. A., & Zenzen, M. J. (2005). On levels of cognitive modeling. Philosophical Psychology, 18 (5), 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080500264248

Tarchi, C., Ruffini, C., & Pecini, C. (2021). The contribution of executive functions when reading multiple texts: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 716463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716463

Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90 (3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352

Underwood, B. J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30 (2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076759

Van Den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–188). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2 (2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537909544458

VanSledright, B. A. (2002). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom: Results from a researcher-practitioner design experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1086/499720

vanSledright, B. A., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98 (3), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/461893

Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology, 41 (4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00711.x

Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000302

Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). A tale of two tests: The role of topic and general academic knowledge in traditional versus contemporary scenario-based reading. Learning and Instruction, 73 , 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101462

Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2 , 301–311.

Williams, J. P., Kao, J. C., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., Cheng, R., & DeBonis, D. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (8), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73

Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 36–48). Routledge.

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in the digital world . Harper Collins Publishers.

Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2

Yang, S. C. (2002). Multidimensional taxonomy of learners cognitive processing in discourse synthesis with hypermedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00031-0

Download references

Daniel R. Espinas was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant H325D180086) in the US Department of Education to Vanderbilt University. Brennan W. Chandler was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant H325H190003) in the US Department of Education to The University of Texas at Austin.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

Daniel R. Espinas

The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

Daniel R. Espinas & Brennan W. Chandler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Espinas .

Ethics declarations

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Special Education Programs or the US Department of Education.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

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 Commons 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/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Espinas, D.R., Chandler, B.W. Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8

Download citation

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 07 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Multiple document comprehension
• Multiple source use
• Intertextual integration
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Intrinsic Motivation: How Internal Rewards Drive Behavior

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Illustration by Joshua Seong. © Verywell, 2018.

How Intrinsic Motivation Works

• Extrinsic Reinforcement
• Importance in Daily Life
• Influential Factors
• Potential Pitfalls

Intrinsic motivation is defined as the motivation to engage in a behavior because of the inherent satisfaction of the activity rather than the desire for a reward or specific outcome. According to "Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior With Concept Maps," intrinsic motivation occurs when we act without any obvious external rewards: "We simply enjoy an activity or see it as an opportunity to explore, learn, and actualize our potentials."

The three main elements of intrinsic motivation are autonomy, purpose, and mastery. People are intrinsically motivated when they can act independently, feel that their efforts matter, and gain satisfaction from becoming more skilled.

Intrinsic motivation can be contrasted with extrinsic motivation , which involves engaging in a behavior to earn external rewards or avoid punishment .

Is It Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation?

What are examples of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Consider for a moment your motivation for reading this article. If you are reading it because you have an interest in psychology and simply want to know more about the topic of motivation, then you are acting based upon intrinsic motivation.

If you are reading this article because you have to learn the information for a class and want to avoid getting a bad grade, then you are acting based on extrinsic motivation .

When was the last time you did something simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself? There are a number of activities that fall into this category. For instance, you may plant a garden, paint a picture, play a game, write a story, take a walk, or read a book. These may or may not produce something or provide a prize. Instead, we do them because we like to. They make us happy.

When you pursue an activity for the pure enjoyment of it, you are doing so because you are intrinsically motivated. Your motivations for engaging in the behavior arise entirely from within rather than out of a desire to gain some type of external reward, such as prizes, money, or acclaim.

Of course, that isn't to say that intrinsically motivated behaviors do not come with their own rewards. These rewards involve creating positive emotions within the individual.

Activities can generate such feelings when they give you a sense of meaning, like participating in volunteer or church events. They may also give you a sense of progress when you see that your work is accomplishing something positive, or competence when you learn something new or become more skilled at a task.

Impact of Extrinsic Reinforcement

Researchers have discovered that offering external rewards or reinforcements for an already internally rewarding activity can actually make the activity less intrinsically rewarding. This phenomenon is known as the overjustification effect .

"A person's intrinsic enjoyment of an activity provides sufficient justification for their behavior," explains author Richard A. Griggs in his book "Psychology: A Concise Introduction."

"With the addition of extrinsic reinforcement, " Griggs writes, "the person may perceive the task as overjustified and then attempt to understand their true motivation (extrinsic versus intrinsic) for engaging in the activity."

People tend to be more creative when they are intrinsically motivated.

In work settings, for instance, productivity can be increased by using extrinsic rewards such as a bonus. However, the actual quality of the work performed is influenced by intrinsic factors. If you are doing something that you find rewarding, interesting, and challenging, you are more likely to come up with novel ideas and creative solutions.

Intrinsic Motivation in Your Life

Intrinsic motivation can drive behavior in all aspects of life, particularly in education, sports, careers, and personal pursuits.

In Education

Intrinsic motivation is an important topic in education. Teachers and instructional designers strive to develop learning environments that are intrinsically rewarding. Unfortunately, many traditional paradigms suggest that most students find learning boring, so they must be extrinsically goaded into educational activities.

In a book chapter called "Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning," authors Thomas Malone and Mark Leeper suggest that this does not need to be the case. They identify several different ways to create learning environments that are intrinsically rewarding.

An activity is intrinsically motivating if "people engage in it for its own sake, rather than in order to receive some external reward or avoid some external punishment." The words fun, interesting, captivating, enjoyable, and intrinsically motivating are used interchangeably to describe such activities.

In Personal Pursuits

Examples of intrinsic motivation in daily life abound. If you participate in a sport because you enjoy it rather than to win awards or competitions, you're responding to intrinsic motivation.

Another example: You try to do your best at work because your tasks and mission provide fulfillment and satisfaction, regardless of extrinsic factors such as pay and benefits.

Perhaps you maintain a beautiful garden because you enjoy planting it and watching it grow, not because the neighbors would complain if your yard were messy. Or, maybe you dress stylishly as a way to express yourself and your interest in fashion, rather than to garner attention. Whenever you do something "just for you," you're responding to intrinsic motivation.

Factors That Influence Intrinsic Motivation

Malone and Leeper identify these factors as increasing intrinsic motivation:

• Challenge : People are more motivated when they pursue goals with personal meaning and when attaining the goal is possible but not necessarily certain. These goals may also relate to their self-esteem when performance feedback is available.
• Control : People want control over themselves and their environments and want to determine what they pursue.
• Cooperation and competition : Intrinsic motivation can be increased in situations where people gain satisfaction from helping others. It also applies to cases where they can compare their performance favorably to that of others.
• Curiosity : Internal motivation is increased when something in the physical environment grabs the individual's attention (sensory curiosity). It also occurs when something about the activity stimulates the person to want to learn more (cognitive curiosity).
• Recognition : People enjoy having their accomplishments recognized by others, which can increase internal motivation.

Potential Pitfalls Affecting Intrinsic Motivation

Experts have noted that offering unnecessary rewards can have unexpected costs. While we like to think that offering a reward will improve a person's motivation , interest, and performance, this isn't always the case.

When children are rewarded for playing with toys that they already enjoy playing with, their enjoyment of those toys, and their motivation to continue playing with them, actually decreases.

It is important to note, however, that a number of factors can influence whether intrinsic motivation is increased or decreased by external rewards. Salience or the significance of the event itself often plays a critical role.

An athlete competing in a sporting event might view the winner's prize as confirmation of competence and exceptionalism. On the other hand, some athletes might view the same prize as a sort of bribe or coercion.

The way in which the individual views the importance of different characteristics of the event impacts whether the reward will affect their intrinsic motivation for participating in that activity.

In your own life, there are probably many things you do which are prompted by intrinsic motivation. These are important elements for a well-balanced life. If we spend all of our time working to make money, we may miss out on the simple pleasures of life. Realizing your own intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and balancing them can be quite rewarding.

Coon D, Mitterer JO. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior With Concept Maps . Wadsworth.

Pink DH.  Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us . Reprint, paperback ed. Riverhead Books; 2012.

Levy A, DeLeon IG, Martinez CK, et al. A quantitative review of overjustification effects in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.   J Appl Behav Anal . 2017;50(2):206–221. doi:10.1002/jaba.359

Griggs RA. Psychology: A Concise Introduction. 3rd ed . Worth Publishers.

Malone TW, Lepper MR. Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning . In: Snow RE, Farr MJ, ed. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction: Iii. Conative and Affective Process Analysis . Erlbaum.

Boedecker J, Lampe T, Riedmiller M. Modeling effects of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on the competition between striatal learning systems .  Front Psychol . 2013;4:739. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00739

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."