Search

Both self-regulation and external regulation are key to understanding adolescents' learning and positive development at school. However, evidence on the joint development of self-regulated learning and externally regulated learning during adolescence is lacking. In addition, the current knowledge on interrelations between the development of adolescents' self-regulated learning, externally regulated learning, behaviors of teachers and parents in terms of autonomy support and achievement pressure, and academic achievement is very limited. The present multilevel longitudinal analysis focusing on the domain of mathematics (N = 1,542 German adolescents; annual assessments from Grades 5 to 9; mean age at Grade 5 = 11.79 years, SD = 0.71, 51.75% female) addressed these gaps. Results from multilevel latent basic growth curve models showed that self- and externally regulated learning decreased over the 5 years at both the individual student and the class level. Changes in self- and externally regulated learning were linked: Classes with higher levels of self-regulated learning at Grade 5 showed a stronger decrease in externally regulated learning over time. Initial levels of and changes in student-reported teacher and parental autonomy support and achievement pressure were associated with self- and externally regulated learning at the individual student level; student-reported teacher autonomy support and self-regulated learning were also linked at the class level. Self-regulated learning related positively to standardized achievement test scores but not to adolescents' grades. This study adds to the scarce evidence base on different regulatory forms of adolescents' learning and can inform future research on adolescents' positive development and educational practice.

The field of personality psychology could contribute to the aims of educational research, but several misconceptions may hold back this synthesis. We address three "misconceptions" about personality psychology that are surprisingly pervasive outside of that field: that there are personality types, that personality is fixed, and that the existence of personality implies that situations are unimportant. We then cover four ways that personality psychology can assist educational aims: personality can be used to (1) boost our ability to accurately predict educational outcomes, (2) inform educational interventions, (3) support the academic development of all learners in personalised learning interventions, and (4) be employed as target outcomes for education. In the process, we show how personality relates to important educational outcomes, outline theoretical links with educationally relevant concepts like socio-emotional skills, and include an overview of current personality scales that can be used when getting started. Through this paper, we hope to stimulate and enthuse researchers to advance synthesis between the disciplines.

Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing credibility revolution in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our fields practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeisters (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychologys disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.

The use of psychometric tools to investigate the impact of school-based wellbeing programs raises a number of ethical issues around students' rights, confidentiality and protection. Researchers have explicit ethical obligations to protect participants from potential psychological harms, but guidance is needed for effectively navigating disclosure of identifiable confidential information that indicates signs of psychological distress. Drawing on a large-scale study examining student, school, and system-based factors that impact the implementation of a school-based social and emotional learning program, we describe patterns of distress attained from quantitative and qualitative questions and describe the process that we evolved to monitor and disclose sensitive mental health information, providing one example of how researchers might effectively address the responsibilities that emerge when collecting sensitive information from students within an education system. The patterns and processes that emerged illustrate that the inclusion of mental distress information can elicit important insights, but also brings responsibilities for minimising risks and maximising benefits.

The use of psychometric tools to investigate the impact of school-based wellbeing programs raises a number of ethical issues around students' rights, confidentiality and protection. Researchers have explicit ethical obligations to protect participants from potential psychological harms, but guidance is needed for effectively navigating disclosure of identifiable confidential information that indicates signs of psychological distress. Drawing on a large-scale study examining student, school, and system-based factors that impact the implementation of a school-based social and emotional learning program, we describe patterns of distress attained from quantitative and qualitative questions and describe the process that we evolved to monitor and disclose sensitive mental health information, providing one example of how researchers might effectively address the responsibilities that emerge when collecting sensitive information from students within an education system. The patterns and processes that emerged illustrate that the inclusion of mental distress information can elicit important insights, but also brings responsibilities for minimising risks and maximising benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are open people open? A recent theory suggests that openness/intellect reflects sensitivity to the reward value of information, but so far, this has undergone few direct tests. To assess preferences for information, we constructed a novel task, adapted from information‐seeking paradigms within decision science, in which participants could choose to see information related to a guessing game they had just completed. Across two studies (one exploratory, n = 151; one confirmatory, n = 301), openness/intellect did not predict information seeking. Our results thus do not support a straightforward version of the theory, whereby open individuals display a general‐purpose sensitivity to any sort of new information. However, trait curiosity (arguably a facet of openness/intellect) predicted information seeking in both studies, and uncertainty intolerance (inversely related to openness/intellect) predicted information seeking in Study 2. Thus, it is possible that the domain‐level null association masks two divergent information‐seeking pathways: one approach motivated (curiosity) and one avoidance motivated (uncertainty intolerance). It remains to be seen whether these conflicting motivations can be isolated and if doing so reveals any association between information‐seeking and the broader openness/intellect domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]