Welcome to Division 15

The American Psychological Association’s flagship division for Educational Psychology.

Important News

Call for Nominations for 2018 Executive Committee Positions

Division 15 seeks nominations (including self-nominations) for leadership roles within our organization.  Nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee in preparation for a Division-wide vote in the spring.  Positions on this year’s ballot include:

  • Vice President (4 year-term for entry role in the Presidential line; 2018-2022)
  • Member-at-Large (3-year term; 2018-2021)
  • Member-at-Large (3-year term, 2018-2021)

The Vice President role is the initial role in our expanded Presidential line to four years.  This expansion is designed to better pace the workload of the President’s role.  Due to time commitments, we suggest that academic nominees be at the level of tenured Associate Professor or Professor rather than Assistant Professor.

Members-at-Large serve three-year terms within Division 15’s Executive Committee. These individuals are responsible for weighing important decisions facing our organization, and for supporting the work of a subset of committees to which they are assigned. Members-at-Large are encouraged to attend up to three meetings of the Executive Committee each year (APA, AERA, and a Fall Retreat), for which their travel and accommodations are reimbursed.

Also, please remember that only those Division 15 members who are also members of APA are eligible to run for office and to vote in this election. If you would like to be involved in this process, be sure to renew your APA and Division 15 membership as soon as possible.

Please send nominations or self-nominations to Past President Bonnie J.F. Meyer (bjm8@psu.edu).  The final slate of officers needs to be to APA by the end of January 2018. As such, the Division 15 Nominations Committee would appreciate these nominations soon.  Further information on Division 15 elections may be found under Article V of the Division’s By-Laws.

Call for 2018 APA Convention Collaborative Proposals

For the 2018 APA Convention, APA will continue to implement collaborative programming across divisions as a means of highlighting its unique role as a unifying force in psychology. We invite Division 15 members to propose collaborative sessions that would be of interest to those in various psychological disciplines.

Collaborative session submissions can be on any psychological topic, but special consideration will be given to proposals consistent with the APA 2018 collaborative programming themes, found here: http://apa.org/convention/convention-proposals.pdf. In their proposals, submitters must identify a minimum of two (or up to seven) APA Divisions relevant to the proposal content.

Collaborative session organizers from Division 15—or those interested in pursuing Division 15 collaborations—are encouraged to contact the Division 15 Program Co-Chairs, Peggy N. Van Meter and Rayne A. Sperling at convention@apadiv15.org before submitting so that the Co-Chairs can assist with securing cross-division collaborations.

Collaborative Submissions are due October 13, 2017 by 5 p.m. ET. 

Division 15 Releases Inaugural Issue of One Tip

Dear Friends of the Division 15,

I am delighted to introduce this inaugural issue of One Tip, linked here.  One Tip is a new initiative of the Membership Committee of the Division 15. In this short essay, senior scholars are invited to share their stories and insights with junior researchers. Despite the title, you will discover more than one tip. Dr. Bernie Weiner has written this first piece with his brilliance and humor. At some parts, you will pause and ponder, and at others, you will find yourself laughing out loud.

This particular piece is about research and publishing, but One Tip could contain stories and advice on any aspect of life in academia. We intend to make it a regular publication (four issues per year). So, if you have recommendations for the future authors, please forward your recommendation to me.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested in reading it.

Warm regards,

Serena Shim, Membership Committee Chair

Sungok Serena Shim, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Program Director, MA in Educational Psychology
Associate Editor, Educational Psychology
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306

Invitation for Public Comment on IES-Funded Efficacy, Replication, and Effectiveness Studies

Each year, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) invites applications for education and special education research projects that address one of five research goals, including Efficacy and Replication (Goal 3) and Effectiveness (Goal 4). We write to request your feedback on whether Goals 3 and 4 as currently configured are meeting the needs of the field, or whether we should consider making changes to incentivize and support more replication and effectiveness studies.

The requirements and recommendations for Goal 3 and Goal 4 projects are described in the Request for Applications for Education Research (84.305A) and Special Education Research (84.324A). Briefly, Goal 3 supports the evaluation of fully-developed interventions to determine whether they produce a beneficial impact on student education outcomes relative to a counterfactual when they are implemented under ideal or routine conditions by the end user in authentic education settings. Goal 4 supports the independent evaluation of fully-developed interventions with prior evidence of efficacy to determine whether they produce a beneficial impact on student education outcomes relative to a counterfactual when they are implemented by the end user under routine conditions in authentic education settings. To date, IES has funded 321 Goal 3 studies and 18 Goal 4 studies.

In October 2016, IES convened a group of experts for a Technical Working Group (TWG) to discuss the broad question of what should come after an efficacy study (a summary of the TWG meeting (PDF) and a blog post summarizing the discussion are available on the IES website). The TWG agreed that more emphasis on replication research is needed, and recognized that replication may take different forms, including re-analysis of original datasets; direct replications (in which the elements and conditions of the original study are repeated as closely as possible); and conceptual replications (in which the parameters of the original study are modified in some way, such as altering an aspect of the intervention to improve outcomes or re-testing an intervention on a different population or in a different context). About half of all Goal 3 and Goal 4 studies funded by IES have been conceptual replications; re-analysis of datasets and direct replications are relatively rare.

The TWG considered various actions IES could take to increase the visibility and support it provides for replication studies. The TWG also discussed whether the requirements for a Goal 4 study – in particular, the emphasis on an independent evaluation of an intervention under routine conditions – are impeding efforts to build more evidence on interventions that have prior evidence of efficacy. Finally, the TWG considered whether more attention is needed to examine causal mechanisms of interventions, variability across studies or study sites, and strategies to produce greater impacts and/or to help end users implement and sustain interventions with fidelity.

As we consider the TWG’s comments and recommendations, we would also like to invite input from the field on the following questions:

  1. What can IES do to encourage more visible and systematic replication research?
  2. How can IES revise the current requirements for Goal 4 to encourage more effectiveness studies? Specifically:
    • How important is IES’ current requirement for an independent evaluation, that is, an evaluation carried out by individuals who did not and do not participate in the development or distribution of the intervention? Are there other ways that an independent evaluation might be conceptualized?
    • Do we need a different definition of routine conditions? Currently, IES uses the term to refer to conditions under which an intervention is implemented that reflect (1) the everyday practice occurring in classrooms, schools, and districts; (2) the heterogeneity of the target population; and (3) typical or standard implementation support.
  3. Does IES pay sufficient attention to collecting and analyzing data on program implementation under the current research goal structure? If not, how can IES better support this type of research?
  4. Does IES place enough emphasis on examining causal mechanisms and variation in impacts under the current goal structure? If not, what can IES do to better support work in these areas?

Please send your feedback to Comments.Research@ed.gov by Monday, October 2, 2017. We also encourage you to forward this request to anyone interested in providing suggestions. Thank you.

Joan McLaughlin
National Center for Special Education Research

Thomas Brock
National Center for Special Education Research
Delegated the Duties of IES Director