Research on educational assessment and teaching optimization strategies based on environmental and social psychology
Vol 10, Issue 1, 2025, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 0 (Abstract) 0 (PDF)
Abstract
This study presents a novel integrated framework that uniquely combines environmental and social psychology perspectives to optimize educational assessment and teaching methodology in Chinese high schools. Unlike previous studies that examined these factors in isolation, our approach innovatively investigates their synergistic effects through a comprehensive mixed-methods design spanning 12 high schools across diverse regions of China. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 2,400 students and 240 teachers across 12 high schools in Eastern, Central, and Western China. The research employed comprehensive measurement tools including the Classroom Environment Scale (CES) and Student Interaction Matrix (SIM) to assess environmental and social psychological factors. Results indicate significant correlations between environmental adaptation and academic performance (r = 0.68, p = 0.0003), with grade level moderating this relationship. Hierarchical regression analyses reveal that environmental and social psychological factors collectively explain 52.3% of the variance in academic performance. The study identifies a crucial mediating role of psychological well-being in the relationship between environmental factors and academic outcomes. Grade 12 students demonstrated higher environmental adaptation capabilities (M = 4.28, SD = 0.67, p = 0.0008) compared to lower grades, suggesting a developmental trajectory in environmental adaptation. These findings provide important implications for educational policy and practice, particularly in optimizing learning environments and teaching methodologies. The research contributes to the theoretical understanding of how environmental and social psychological factors interact to influence educational outcomes in the Chinese context
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Educational Achievement Systems.
2. Ainley, M. (2012). Students' interest and engagement in classroom activities. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 283-302). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_13
3. Alferi, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1-18.
4. Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864
5. Anderman, E. M., & Patrick, H. (2012). Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence, and classroom climate. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 173-192). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_8
6. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
7. Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224
8. Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and society: A method of assessment and study. Van Nostrand.
9. Atkinson, R. C., & Shifrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2) (pp. 89-195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
10. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181-214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181
11. Ausubel, D. P. (1961). Learning by discovery: Rationale and mystique. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 45, 18-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263656104526904
12. Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working Memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
13. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
14. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman & Co.
15. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
16. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
17. Chadwick, D., Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S. & Paas, F. (2015). Using cognitive load compliant instructions to support working memory for anxious students. 8th Cognitive Load Theory Conference: CO, USA.
18. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.). National Association of School Psychologists.
19. Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
20. Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Malmberg, L.-E., Hall, J., & Ginns, P. (2015). Academic buoyancy, student achievement, and the linking role of control: A cross-lagged analysis of high school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12066
21. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
22. Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277
23. Cromley, J. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (2012). Instruction and cognition. Cognitive Science, 3, 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1192
24. De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861-880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032464
25. Dean, D., Jr., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384-397.
26. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-110). Oxford University Press.
27. Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689-719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082
28. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfeld, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
29. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). Guildford.
30. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications (Rev). ADI Press.
31. Evans, P., & Martin, A. J. (2021). Explicit instruction. In J. Reeve (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Educational Psychology. Routledge.
32. Evans, P., & Martin, A. J. (2022). Load reduction instruction: Multilevel effects for motivation, engagement, and achievement in mathematics. Submitted for publication.
33. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5
34. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
35. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
36. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001
37. Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861
38. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. Guilford Press.
39. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
40. Hattie, J., Hodis, F. A., & Kang, S. H. (2020). Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101865
41. Hermkes, R., Mach, H., & Minnameier, G. (2018). Interaction-based coding of scaffolding processes. Learning and Instruction, 54, 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.003
42. Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300-1323.
43. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
44. Jansen, T., Meyer, J., Wigfeld, A., & Möller, J. (2022). Which student and instructional variables are most strongly related to academic motivation in K-12 education? A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 148(1-2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000354
45. Jones, B. D., & Carter, D. (2019). Relationships between students' course perceptions, engagement, and learning. Social Psychology of Education, 22(4), 819-839.
46. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
47. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579-588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.579
48. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
49. Kalyuga, S., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2012). Educational implications of expertise reversal effects in learning and performance of complex cognitive and sensorimotor skills. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 313-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9195-x
50. Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
51. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
52. Klahr, D. (2009). "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens": What about direct instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 291-310). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
53. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Abc-Clio.
54. Lee, H. S., & Anderson, J. R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction got to do with it? Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 445-469.
55. Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2012). The Motivation and Engagement Scale: Theoretical framework, psychometric properties, and applied yields. Australian Psychologist, 47, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00049.x
56. Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2013). Direct instruction and academic achievement. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement. Routledge.
57. Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2020). Direct instruction. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), Visible learning: Guide to student achievement. Routledge.
58. Lin, X. (2019). Achievement goal orientations as predictors of self-regulated learning strategies of international ESL students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(2), 214-223.
59. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice. British Psychological Society.
60. Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X503501
61. Martin, A. J. (1999-2022). Motivation and Engagement Scale. Lifelong Achievement Group.
62. Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-440. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X118036
63. Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2018). Load reduction instruction: Exploring a framework that assesses explicit instruction through to independent learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 203-214.
64. Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2019). Load reduction instruction in science and mathematics: Extending the paradigm to independent learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 88-98.
65. Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2020). Cognitive load theory and mathematics learning: Contemporary research and implications. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1-13.
66. Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2021). Cognitive load theory and teaching quality: Insights from research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103234.
67. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
68. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
69. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138.
70. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.
71. Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Sweller, J. (Eds.). (2020). Advances in cognitive load theory: Rethinking teaching. Routledge.
72. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.
73. Wong, M., Evans, P., & Anderson, J. (2019). Working memory and mathematics learning: Contemporary research and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 99-109.
74. Young, J. Q., Van Merriënboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Medical Teacher, 36(5), 371-384.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i1.3203
(0 Abstract Views, 0 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Hongxuan Bian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.