EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 46(2), 71–83, 2011

Copyright

C Division 15, American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538648

The Role of Educational Psychology in

Teacher Education: Three Challenges for
Educational Psychologists
Helen Patrick
Department of Educational Studies
Purdue University

Lynley H. Anderman
School of Educational Policy and Leadership
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011

The Ohio State University

Paige S. Bruening
Department of Education
Capital University

Lisa C. Duffin
Department of Psychology
Western Kentucky University

We argue that this is a crucial time for educational psychology as a field to refocus its attention
on the evidence base for its contribution to teacher education. In revisiting the recommendations
of the APA Division 15 committee charged with examining the role of educational psychology
in teacher education (Anderson et al., 1995), we note positive changes in educational psychol-
ogy courses for preservice teachers. We then identify and discuss three immediate challenges
for educational psychologists: (a) communicating the relevance of educational psychology
research to the wider education community, (b) developing collaborative relationships with
colleagues in teacher education programs that support a common discourse and shared vision
of effective teacher preparation, and (c) documenting the ways that educational psychology
courses make a difference to the practice of graduating teachers and to the educational experi-
ences of their K–12 students. We conclude with suggestions for addressing these challenges.

Most educational psychologists probably believe that an im-
portant role of educational psychology is to contribute to
the education of preservice teachers. This has certainly been
the case throughout the history of our discipline (Dewey,
1897/1998; Hilgard, 1996; James, 1899; Thorndike, 1910).
Furthermore, educational psychologists have considerable
expertise in learning, development, motivation, classroom
management, and assessment—content that is integral to ef-
fective teaching and vital for prospective teachers to learn.
But does our involvement in teacher education make a differ-
ence in terms of how graduating teachers teach? Are teachers
more effective for having taken our courses? Presumably we
believe so, but how do we know? And how do we convince
others who may be skeptical about the role of educational
psychology in teacher education? These are questions we1
have been reflecting on a lot lately, with concern. We be-
lieve that this is a crucial time for educational psychology
as a field to refocus its attention on the evidence base for its

Correspondence should be addressed to Helen Patrick, Department of 1 To distinguish “we” the authors, from “we” educational psychologists

Educational Studies, Purdue University, 100 North University Street, West (who also include the authors), from this point we refer to educational
Lafayette, IN 47907-2098. E-mail: hpatrick@purdue.edu psychologists in general in the third person.
 72 PATRICK, ANDERMAN, BRUENING, DUFFIN
contribution to teacher education. The purpose of the present
article, therefore, is to stimulate discussion and action within
our field.
PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION IN THE
1980s
During the 1980s teacher educators responded to their critics,
particularly criticisms about the preparedness of new teach-
ers (e.g., National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983), by reforming teacher education (The Holmes Group,
1986, 1995). A central objective of these reform efforts was
to create greater curricular coherence within programs. That
is, courses were to be chosen, aligned, and sequenced so that
they build on each other to create a strong foundation, and
lead to preservice teachers gaining “a sense of the intellectual
structure and boundaries of their disciplines, rather than [stu-
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
dents] taking a series of disjointed, prematurely specialized
fragments” (The Holmes Group, 1986, p. 16). After the re-
structuring, educational psychology tended to be positioned
peripherally in teacher education programs, in contrast to
the central position it held before. For example, educational
psychology was often sequenced as a prerequisite or “gate-
keeper” course to teacher education programs, which perhaps
communicated that “real” teacher education began with the
courses that followed. This change, coupled with the typical
situation of educational psychologists’ home departments
being outside those that house teacher educational programs
(often labeled “Curriculum and Instruction”), led to edu-
cational psychologists often being marginalized (Berliner,
1992).
Marginalization was not just associated with program se-
quencing and requirements. It was seen, at least by some, as
a consequence of how educational psychology was taught to
preservice teachers; the courses “insured our irrelevance to
those in the world of educational practice” (Berliner, 1992,
p. 149). Educational psychology tended to be characterized
by teacher educators, practicing teachers, and students them-
selves as contributing abstract, decontextualized, and univer-
sal content that did not help students see the relevance of the
theories that were taught or make meaningful and practical
connections with real educational situations (Berliner, 1992;
Peterson, Clark, & Dickson, 1990). Furthermore, textbooks
were criticized as overly encyclopedic, with multiple per-
spectives presented on the same topic. For example, chapters
on motivation typically include an introduction to Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
attributions, perceptions of self-competence, self-efficacy,
expectancy and value, mastery and performance goal ori-
entations, and goal setting. The array of theories and con-
structs that textbooks present within each topic may reflect
publishers’ desires to market textbooks broadly, and thus
have “something for everyone.” Unfortunately, some educa-
tional psychology instructors may interpret the inclusion of
so many perspectives as signaling experts’ views that preser-
vice teachers need to know all of this information. Attempting
to include all of a textbook’s content into a syllabus, how-
ever, can lead to an emphasis on “covering content” at the
expense of developing sound conceptual understanding—
students may learn the “what” but not the “why,” “when,”
or “how” that are essential for the application of knowl-
edge. Furthermore, presenting an array of similar constructs
and theories, without critique or integration, may lead to
confusion (L. Anderman & Leake, 2005). For example, are
theoretical constructs interchangeable? If not, do they work
together, and if so, how? In short, there was concern that
textbooks did not present a clear and unified message about
what teachers should know or do (Kiewra & Gubbels, 1997).
These multiple perspectives, in conjunction with the per-
ceived irrelevance of the theories to teaching, contributed to
a decline in specific educational psychology courses within
teacher education programs (Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
CHANGES FROM THE 1990s IN TEACHING
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY TO
PRESERVICE TEACHERS
In response to concerns about the field’s relevance, there
was a flurry of interest and conversation among educational
psychologists during the late 1980s2 and through the 1990s.
Discussions about the nature of their contribution to teacher
education and how psychologists could contribute more cen-
trally to the preparation of future teachers were prominent.
In the early 1990s the Educational Psychology Divi-
sion (Division 15) of the American Psychological Associ-
ation (APA), under the leadership of David Berliner, cre-
ated a committee that was charged with examining the role
of educational psychology in teacher education. This com-
mittee published its recommendations in Educational Psy-
chologist (Anderson et al., 1995). These recommendations
were followed by a number of highly visible, field-wide
activities intended to promote change. A special issue of
Educational Psychologist, guest edited by Blumenfeld and
Anderson (1996), highlighted selected approaches where
educational psychologists were taking up the challenge of
teaching educational psychology in more meaningful ways
to prospective teachers. Division 15 sponsored a 2-day con-
ference, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, in 1996, that focused
specifically on the teaching of educational psychology. The
Teaching Educational Psychology Special Interest Group was
formed within the American Educational Research Associ-
ation (AERA) in 1994. That group subsequently launched,
in 2004, Teaching Educational Psychology, a peer-reviewed
online journal with a mission of communicating about teach-
ing educational psychology to preservice and in-service
2 For a review of similar concerns prior to the 1980s, see Feldhusen
(1976) and Hilgard (1996).

teachers, administrators, policy makers, and the public
(http://www.teachingeducpsych.org/). Finally, a second con-
ference on the Teaching of Educational Psychology was spon-
sored by Division 15 at the 2009 APA conference in Toronto,
Canada.
Many positive changes in educational psychology courses
for preservice teachers resulted from activities such as those
just mentioned. In particular, responses addressed the warn-
ing that principles and concepts from educational psychol-
ogy will be viewed as relevant for teachers “only when
they are learned in forms that render them useful in the
context of classroom teaching” (Anderson et al., 1995, p.
44). There has been greater use of cases to contextual-
ize content, illustrate its relevance, promote critical analy-
sis of situations, and represent some of the complexity of
classrooms (Sudzina, 1997; Woolfolk Hoy, 1996). Books of
case studies (e.g., Greenwood & Fillmer, 1999; Ormrod &
McGuire, 2007) that include developmental, learning, moti-
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
vational, management, and assessment issues have become
more plentiful and popular. Publishers of educational psy-
chology textbooks have made ancillary materials such as
video-based cases increasingly available; some to instruc-
tors and others to students also, whether as DVDs pack-
aged with textbooks or through access to case-rich websites
(Ormrod, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy, 2008). The inclusion of case
study examples and Theory into Practice vignettes in text-
books has become standard. In general, textbooks have re-
mained encyclopedic rather than becoming streamlined (i.e.,
organized around central ideas), due largely to the varied
demands of instructors (Brophy, 2006). This is changing a
little, however. Some textbook publishers have begun to of-
fer instructors the opportunity to select, from a range of
chapters, just those they want included for a specific course,
thus creating somewhat customized, leaner versions of text-
books. Although this approach does not address the prob-
lem of multiple theories and constructs, some of which in-
structors may not wish to address, being included in the
same chapter, it does provide a way to eliminate topics that
are not part of a particular educational psychology course
(i.e., topics that may be taught in a separate course in some
institutions).
It is now 15 years since educational psychology’s lat-
est call to action. It seems to us that educational psychol-
ogists have in general heeded the call to make their con-
tent more relevant and meaningful to preservice teachers
and to emphasize connections between theory and class-
room application. With these changes, it may be expected
that the field’s reputation would be enhanced and its po-
sition in teacher education programs strengthened. How
is educational psychology situated within teacher educa-
tion now? We suspect many would say that educational
psychology continues to be marginalized, often not hav-
ing a central role in teacher education, despite the rele-
vance and significance of the field to educational prac-
tice.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION 73
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTENT
AND TEACHER EDUCATION
In examining current documents that outline necessary com-
ponents of teacher education, we believe it is clear that con-
tent that educational psychologists consider central to their
discipline is integral to teacher education. For example, in
the United States, the National Academy of Education (NAE;
2005) published a set of knowledge and skills that teachers
need to know and be able to do in order to be highly effective.
In their evaluation, teachers require extensive “knowledge
of learners and how they learn and develop within social
contexts” (NAE, 2005, p. 5). Furthermore, “understanding
children, how they develop, and how they learn is critical for
effective instruction. . . . Teachers need to understand general
developmental progressions, as well as individual differences
in development” (pp. 9–10). The NAE contended that highly
effective teachers understand cognitive processing, metacog-
nition, and motivation and that regardless of the type of train-
ing program teacher educators receive, candidates in all pro-
grams should receive comprehensive education in these core
areas (see also Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, &
Beckett, 2005). In fact, they reported that teachers who are
the most prepared to teach are those well versed in develop-
ment, learning, and assessment (they also noted pedagogical
content knowledge, which is outside educational psychol-
ogy). Furthermore, having had coursework on these topics is
associated with increased likelihood of staying in a teaching
career (NAE, 2005).
The focus on educational psychology content has also
been acknowledged as vital by agencies that accredit teacher
education programs. For example, in the United States the
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) requires that teacher education programs meet cer-
tain standards in order to adequately prepare teacher candi-
dates for the teaching profession. Standard One delineates
the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills,
and the professional dispositions necessary for teacher can-
didates to develop in order for them to help all students learn
(NCATE, 2008). Some of this knowledge, including student
learning, school and family contexts, assessment, language
acquisition, and cultural influences on learning, falls clearly
within the scope of typical educational psychology classes.
Many of these same topics are also included in the stan-
dards of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (1992) and, in many states, the licensure require-
ments to teach. Other countries require preservice teachers
to meet similar standards before they teach independently
(e.g., Germany; German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research, 2004; Australia; Queensland College of Teachers,
2006; United Kingdom; Training and Development Agency
for Schools, 2007).
In the United States, most states require that teachers
pass tests for certification. The PRAXIS series of exams,
 74 PATRICK, ANDERMAN, BRUENING, DUFFIN
designed to measure knowledge and skills believed to be
necessary for beginning teachers (Educational Testing Ser-
vice [ETS], 2004, 2009), is the test used most commonly by
states at present. Teachers must pass a selection of these ex-
ams, with the composition dependent on grade level, subject
area, and state (ETS, 2009). Two PRAXIS II exams involve
core educational psychology content: Principles of Learn-
ing and Teaching (PLT), and Elementary Education: Cur-
riculum, Instruction, and Assessment (EE: CIA). The PLT
exam, with four versions that span different grade ranges,
contains knowledge and application of student development
and the learning process, individual differences, motivation,
the learning environment, assessment, and measurement the-
ory. It also requires competence in reading and analyzing
current research and applying it to classroom settings. At the
time of writing, a passing PLT score is required by 20 states.
The EE: CIA exam includes knowledge and application of
learning theories, motivation strategies, instructional strate-
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
gies, and assessment and evaluation procedures. Currently,
15 states require their elementary teachers to pass it; 7 of
those also require teachers to have satisfactory scores on the
PLT. Concepts addressed in the PLT and EE: CIA exams
are all central to educational psychology courses (Sutton,
2004), and all or most of the 255 topics within the PLT are
addressed in the predominant educational psychology text-
books (Seifert, 2008).
Finally, the APA Education Directorate’s Center for Psy-
chology in Schools and Education has recently developed
a set of online modules, designed specifically for inservice
teachers, to provide recommendations for practice based on
psychological research (Novotney, 2009). The Center has
gained the support of numerous key accreditation agencies
(including NCATE, the National Association of State Boards
of Education, and the teacher certification office of ETS) for
incorporating “core psychological principles and knowledge
to be used in setting standards for teacher licensing, certifica-
tion and the accreditation of teacher education” (Novotney,
2009, p. 71).
Given all of the developments outlined in this and the
previous section, it would seem that educational psycholo-
gists and their courses would be playing a central role in
preservice teacher education programs. To us, however, that
does not seem to be the case. In the following section we
discuss challenges that we believe educational psychologists
must confront if they are to play an integral role in prepar-
ing teachers and contributing to their ongoing professional
development.
CHALLENGES THAT EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGISTS FACE CURRENTLY WITHIN
TEACHER EDUCATION
The thoughtful reflection on and significant revision of many
educational psychological offerings for preservice teachers,
coupled with the increased focus on psychological standards
for teacher certification just described, should conceivably
have led to increased participation by psychologists in teacher
education programs and a greater recognition of the legiti-
macy of educational psychology courses, compared to the
late 1980s. There is little evidence, either systematic or anec-
dotal, however that this change has occurred. Indeed, anecdo-
tal evidence suggests to us that the educational psychologists’
role in teacher education continues to be marginal.
In revisiting the recommendations of the Division 15 com-
mittee (Anderson et al., 1995), we argue that only some have
been addressed, most notably changing the way that educa-
tional psychologists teach their content to preservice teach-
ers. Other important recommendations that have not been
addressed sufficiently, in our opinion, include (a) communi-
cating the relevance of educational psychology research to
the wider education community, (b) developing collaborative
relationships with colleagues in teacher education programs
that support a common discourse and shared vision of ef-
fective teacher preparation, and (c) documenting the ways
that educational psychology courses make a difference to
the practice of graduating teachers and to the educational
experiences of their K–12 students.
Concern about these three issues has been voiced numer-
ous times, both prior to the committee’s recommendations
and since (e.g., Berliner, 1992; Carroll, 1963; Chase, 1998;
Cohen, 1973; Peterson et al., 1990, Scandura et al., 1978;
Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). However, we believe the stakes have in-
creased dramatically. At the time of writing, university-based
teacher education programs in general are coming under con-
siderable and increasing criticism and pressure from policy
makers. Notably, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
(2009a) has publicly characterized schools of education as
“the Bermuda Triangle of higher education” and described
teacher preparation programs as doing “a mediocre job” and
as being in need of “revolutionary change—not evolution-
ary tinkering” (Duncan, 2009b; Sawchuk, 2009). Although
he did not identify what these revolutionary changes may
involve, the comments were in the context of references to
alternative certification programs such as Teach for America.
As teacher education programs scramble to restructure them-
selves yet again, the continued participation of educational
psychologists becomes particularly at risk.
A logical response to intense budgetary constraints and
pressure to cut existing courses to make room for new re-
quirements is to scrutinize existing courses, faculty positions,
and even program areas themselves. If distinct educational
psychology courses are not viewed as being critical to teacher
education, they, and the faculty and instructors who teach
them, are vulnerable. Thus, the consequences of not meeting
current challenges satisfactorily affect educational psychol-
ogists directly (e.g., McInerney, 2006; Zaragoza, 2009).
We assume that teachers will be better prepared to teach
if they learn about students’ learning, motivation, and de-
velopment and their assessment from instructors with a

specialized background in those topics (i.e., educational psy-
chologists). This is the same argument made typically in ref-
erence to K–12 education—that students’ learning depends
on teachers having deep content knowledge in the subjects
they teach (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Many popular instruc-
tional constructs that are based in developmental and educa-
tional psychology, such as conceptual change (Carey, 1985;
Mason, Gava, & Boldrin, 2008), the zone of proximal devel-
opment (Fernández, Wegerif, Mercer, & Rojas-Drummond,
2001; Vygotsky, 1978), and instructional scaffolding (Nuss-
baum, Hartley, Sinatra, Reynolds, & Bendixen, 2004; Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976), are also complex and, in our ex-
perience, easily misinterpreted or trivialized by instructors
without strong disciplinary expertise. Given that educational
psychology contributes much of what is critical for teachers
to know, we believe that reductions in educational psycholo-
gists’ involvement in teacher education will have significant
deleterious outcomes for teachers, teacher education pro-
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
grams, and ultimately K–12 students.
We argue that there are three issues that pose immediate
challenges for educational psychologists and require their
urgent attention. We discuss each of these challenges in the
following sections.
Challenge 1: Highlight the Relevance of
Educational Psychology Research for Educators
One reason for the continuing marginalization of educational
psychologists in many teacher education programs may be
that they do not take seriously enough the importance of prac-
tice in their own research. This concern is hardly new. For
example, Berliner (1992) has argued that educational psy-
chologists must truly understand educational contexts and
situate their work clearly within them, rather than viewing
schools or classrooms just as sites where psychological prin-
ciples play out (see also Salomon, 1995). Furthermore, com-
municating the relevance of educational psychology research
for the world of practice was part of the impetus for the re-
forms of the 1990s (Anderson et al., 1995).
Despite the recurring calls for explicit links with practice,
however, it still seems to be the case that most empirical
research in educational psychology is written primarily for
an academic audience, and predominantly for other educa-
tional psychologists (Chase, 1998). Furthermore, it appears
that many researchers do not take issues of ecological valid-
ity seriously. This concern is not new, either; 35 years ago
Brophy (1974) cautioned,
All too often, educational research involves the application of
an unrealistically restrictive paradigm, borrowed from con-
trolled laboratory conditions, to a classroom featuring contin-
uous dynamic interaction. This not only makes the laboratory
paradigm difficult to apply; it also leads to trivial research
results or to results which have little if any external validity
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION 75
despite their rather impressive internal validity (reliability,
reproducibility). (p. 48)
Instead, the call for increased relevance in empirical studies
seems, in most cases, to be addressed by relatively brief state-
ments about the implications for practice, usually provided
near the end of discussion sections.
We suspect the field’s slow progress in this regard stems, at
least in part, from the tension between meeting both psychol-
ogists’ and educators’ expectations simultaneously (Good &
Levin, 2001; Scandura et al., 1978). Classroom-based re-
search, with its greater ecological validity, is often judged
as inadequate on scientific grounds (e.g., sample size, lack
of random assignment). However, educational psychologists
cannot assume that simply deriving a list of principles from
relatively decontextualized studies is appropriate for making
recommendations to practitioners. One challenge for edu-
cational psychologists, who stand at the intersection of the
psychological and educational worlds, therefore, is to honor
external validity to the same extent as they do internal va-
lidity. This may be prompted, perhaps, by viewing external
validity as a nonnegotiable component of what is judged
to be “good” empirical research (see also Krathwohl, 1974).
Such a perspective, however, will involve a considerable shift
in both the values and practices of researchers and journal
editors.
Regardless of how educational psychologists choose to
address it, the disconnect between much educational psy-
chology research and practitioners’ needs and concerns re-
mains. As a result, the relevance of educational psychology
to teachers and teaching continues to be less than apparent to
others outside the discipline. This difficulty is related to the
second challenge—having collaborative and mutually valued
relationships between faculty in educational psychology and
other domains of teacher education.
Challenge 2: Develop Collaborative
Relationships and Shared Visions With Teacher
Education Colleagues
In addition to communicating and highlighting the impor-
tance of educational psychology research for educational
practice, educational psychologists need to be proactive
in forming relationships with colleagues in other areas of
teacher education programs. Although many in the field have
worked hard, and successfully, to make educational psychol-
ogy courses relevant and meaningful, the changes that have
been made are often not recognized outside their domain.
It has been our experience that many colleagues in teacher
education hold significant misconceptions about educational
psychology courses, such as content being irrelevant to teach-
ers (e.g., “Our students don’t need lectures on Freud!”)
or pedagogy being decontextualized. Such misconceptions
may result from those colleagues’ limited exposure to the
kinds of improvements in educational psychology instruction
 76 PATRICK, ANDERMAN, BRUENING, DUFFIN

described previously and, perhaps, to their own less-than- At my institution, for example, we have had to fight a contin-
ideal experiences as students themselves. uing battle over the years to preserve an identifiable presence
Furthermore, it has been our experience that some of our in course structures. . . . [One] battle was against the con-
education colleagues do not recognize many concepts and sistently argued case that educational (and developmental)
principles they find important, such as conceptual change psychology should be integrated with other foundations and
curriculum areas in composite subjects. In this latter case,
or cognitive development, as psychological in nature. There-
the identity and quality of educational psychology offerings
fore, the demand for psychological content to be taught in have often been compromised. (p. 14)
teacher preparation programs will not necessarily strengthen
the involvement of educational psychology courses or fac-
The trend of core psychology content being taught by people
ulty in those programs. Educational psychology faculty, and
without specialized educational psychology knowledge may
educational psychology as a discipline, must engage actively
be exacerbated by the fact that, although NCATE (2008),
with other teacher educators by establishing professional re-
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
lationships beyond their own departments. This includes ini-
(1992), and many accrediting agencies in the United States
tiating conversations (both in person and in professional con-
support the content integral to educational psychology, they
ferences and journals) about teacher preparation and practice,
do not detail minimal requirements for instructors of different
rather than waiting to be invited for input. One important as-
content or specify any particular course as being necessary
pect of these conversations might be communicating more
for the development of effective teachers.
fully to teacher educator colleagues about the content, scope,
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011

The issue of who teaches educational psychology content

and design of current educational psychology courses.
The Division 15 committee addressed the issue of rela-
tionships between educational psychology faculty and the
rest of the teacher education program. Their recommenda-
tions encouraged faculty collaboration across traditional di-
visions within teacher education and noted that “this requires
that faculty with different expertise in teacher education
develop a common discourse for thinking about teaching”
(Anderson et al., 1995, p. 153). Of note, teacher educators
were also making the same recommendation. The Holmes
Group (1986), composed of leaders of colleges of education
across the United States, noted that “the disciplinary and
departmental structure of universities is a symptom of lim-
ited faculty involvement and leadership in important issues
that extend beyond the boundaries of the academic major”
(p. 63). They urged “unprecedented cooperation across de-
velopmental and disciplinary lines . . . [so that] faculty from
these diverse realms, who rarely work together now, would
have to work closely to change the structure of the cur-
riculum and to sharply improve the quality of teaching”
(p. 18).
Rather than increased collaboration across departments
or disciplinary areas, however, the placement of educational
psychology courses outside the “real” teacher education pro-
grams (e.g., as prerequisites) in many institutions suggests
that the demand for more psychological content is evoking a
different response. There appear to be two recent and grow-
ing trends: toward faculty outside educational psychology (a)
offering courses in areas such as learning (usually with a pre-
dominant or exclusive sociocultural emphasis) or classroom
management, or (b) claiming that issues of students’ learn-
ing, development, motivation and assessment are addressed
in methods courses. In either case, it is argued, there is no need
for separate educational psychology courses. These trends in
the United States are consistent with the following concern
expressed by McInerney (2006) about educational psychol-
ogy in Australia:
has become more salient in the current economic climate.
Colleges or schools of education, indeed universities, are
under immense pressure to cut costs. This has resulted in
courses being cut, faculty positions lost, and even programs
eliminated. For example, the University of Florida’s educa-
tional psychology program was closed in 2009 (Zaragoza,
2009) and, in 2010, Arizona State University’s Mary Lou
Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education was dises-
tablished. Accompanying this change was the establishment
of the Mary Lou Foulton Teachers College, with faculty out-
side teacher education being dispersed among other colleges
and positions being eliminated (Perkins, 2010). Decisions
about which courses, programs, or departments will be af-
fected are undoubtedly influenced by others’ perceptions of
their value, a point related to the third challenge we believe
that educational psychologists need to address.
Challenge 3: Produce Evidence of the Benefits
of Educational Psychologists’ Involvement in
Teacher Education
The third challenge facing educational psychologists is to
clearly establish that their courses make a difference in terms
of teachers’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and practice, that is,
to demonstrate that teachers benefit from learning educa-
tional psychology from educational psychologists. As we
have mentioned already, this is an assumption we think most
educational psychologists probably hold, but at present it re-
mains an unanswered empirical question. This is research
that needs to be conducted. The third challenge—identifying
and communicating the relevance and value of educational
psychology to practitioners, teacher educators, and policy
makers—is related to the previous two we have discussed,
however, it may have the most significant implications.
Over the years, educational psychologists have been en-
couraged to submit their instruction of preservice teachers to

empirical investigation (e.g., Carroll, 1963; Scandura et al.,
1978). This research has occurred to some extent. We have
identified six general types of studies about educational psy-
chology courses. These types, with representative examples,
are (a) content analyses of educational psychology textbooks
(e.g., Ash & Love-Clark, 1985; Seifert, 2008; Wininger &
Norman, 2005, 2010), (b) descriptions of activities or ap-
proaches that instructors use in their educational psychology
courses (e.g., Blumenfeld, Hicks, & Krajcik, 1996; Paulus
& Roberts, 2006; Renninger, 1996; Taylor & Nolen, 1996),
(c) analyses of the development of preservice teachers’ lan-
guage and knowledge throughout educational psychology
courses (e.g., Chernobilsky, Dacosta, & Hmelo-Silver, 2004),
(d) descriptive analyses of inservice or preservice teach-
ers’ thoughts about educational psychology courses (e.g.,
Feldhusen, 1970; Kiewra & Gubbels, 1997; Tan, 2006), (e)
comparisons of two or more ways to teach some aspect of ed-
ucational psychology (e.g., Durwin & Sherman, 2008; Nir-
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
ula & Peskin, 2008; Salisbury-Glennon & Stevens, 1999),
and (f) comparisons of preservice teachers’ understanding of
content before and after instruction in educational psychol-
ogy courses (e.g., Joram & Gabriele, 1998; Lonka, Joram, &
Bryson, 1996).
There is a dearth of research, however, that shows that in-
volvement in educational psychology courses leads to better
teaching from graduating teachers or greater learning from
their students, compared to not having taken such courses
(Floden & Meniketti, 2005). This is a serious omission. As
with the previous issues we have discussed, the need for em-
pirical evidence of the effectiveness of educational psychol-
ogy courses has been noted in the past. For example, Peterson
and her colleagues (1990) argued that the field needs to “focus
not only on the learning and teaching of educational psychol-
ogy but also on understanding how educational psychology
as a course of study influences the knowledge of candidates
in teacher preparation [emphasis added]” (p. 324). In the
current accountability-driven era, the consequences of not
doing this appear particularly serious.
Pressures on teacher education and an emphasis
on accountability. There is a widespread perception that
U.S. school students are not faring as well as their inter-
national counterparts, and many have argued that teachers
and teacher education programs are largely to blame (e.g.,
Hess, 2001; Leigh & Mead, 2005). Related to this is a press
for accountability—a significant issue currently for teacher
education. Leaders within teacher education warn that the
paucity of empirical research to justify their programs places
them in real jeopardy (Cochran-Smith, 2005a; Cochran-
Smith & Fries, 2005; Grossman, 2008; Liston, Borko, &
Whitcomb, 2008). The magnitude of current arguments about
the role of colleges of education and their faculty in the
preparation of K–12 teachers is illustrated by the overar-
ching themes in the most recent Handbook of Research
on Teacher Education (Cochran-Smith, Feiman-Nemser,
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION 77
McIntrye, & Demers, 2008). The entire volume focuses on
nine foundational issues, such as the purposes of teacher ed-
ucation, where teachers should be taught, and how people
learn to teach.
Many critics of teacher education have argued that courses
in pedagogy do not influence teachers or their students—
indeed, that they are not relevant (for an exception, see Al-
liance for Excellent Education, 2009). In contrast, what is
relevant for effective teaching, they argue, is content knowl-
edge in subjects they will teach (e.g., Finn & Madigan, 2001;
Stotsky, 2006). Fueled by arguments about the ineffective-
ness of teacher education programs, lobbyists for changes in
policy and funding have championed agendas to deregulate
and reform teacher preparation (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000;
Finn & Madigan, 2001; Hess, 2001; Leigh & Mead, 2005).
According to their position, a bachelor’s degree or evidence
of a strong academic record, passing a content competency
test, and a stringent criminal background check are all that is
required for individuals to begin teaching. Proposed changes
to teacher education include increasing the number of alterna-
tive certification programs, relaxing criteria for teacher certi-
fication, and allowing principals to hire noncertified teachers.
This trend in reforms advocated has led to the warning that
“university-based teacher educators are dangerously close to
losing their responsibility for overseeing the preparation of
new teachers” (Grossman, 2008, p. 11).
A recent example of one state’s proposal to increase
teacher quality involved the rule change for teacher licen-
sure proposed by the Board of the Indiana Department of
Education in 2009. The proposed changes involved restrict-
ing the time that preservice teachers spend learning peda-
gogy and pedagogical content knowledge, with elementary
education majors limited to “no more than 30 credit hours in
pedagogy” (Indiana Department of Education [DOE], 2009).
Furthermore, with a baccalaureate content-area major, teach-
ers would need only an education minor, limited to “no more
than 15 credit hours in pedagogy,” and secondary teachers
(Grades 5–12) would not need any education courses so long
as their preparation is approved by the State’s Advisory Board
(Indiana DOE, 2009). After considerable public interest and
input, the final policy did not include maximum limits on
pedagogy courses (Indiana DOE, 2010). In a similar vein,
however, Arizona State University’s teacher education pro-
gram has recently announced cuts to pedagogy requirements
from 60 to 30 credit hours, with a concomitant increase in
content area courses (Kossan, 2010). It appears these and
similar measures may become increasingly prevalent in the
near future.
Unfortunately, teacher educators are not in a strong posi-
tion to refute claims of the ineffectiveness of their courses.
The paucity of a strong research base showing that teacher
education programs produce positive outcomes for teachers
and their students has left those programs in a precarious
position. Educators’ responses, therefore, have been to advo-
cate strongly for conducting high-quality, methodologically
 78 PATRICK, ANDERMAN, BRUENING, DUFFIN
compelling research on the teacher education process, to
document its value and the value of courses that have come
under fire, such as pedagogy. Diverse sources, including the
report by the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Edu-
cation (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005), journal editorials
(e.g., Liston et al., 2008), talks (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 2005a;
Grossman, 2008), and conference symposia (e.g., Wilson,
2008) have called for rigorous studies that provide persua-
sive evidence of the role that teacher education plays in teach-
ers’ and K–12 students’ learning. What is needed, they ar-
gue, are studies “that examine the links between and among
teacher preparation contexts for learning, what teacher can-
didates actually learn, how their learning is played out in
practice in K–12 schools and classrooms, and how this influ-
ences pupils’ learning” (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005,
p. 2). Moreover, without this empirical evidence, Liston and
his colleagues (2008) warned, teacher educators “will move
from their current marginalized status to one of irrelevance”
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
(p. 114). We argue that the same concerns could be echoed
about educational psychologists.
Accountability of educational psychology courses.
The critiques that have been made about teacher education
research in general appear to apply equally to research about
educational psychology courses. For example, after their re-
cent review, the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Ed-
ucation (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005) concluded that
there is a dearth of research-based evidence about the overall
effectiveness of foundations coursework (including educa-
tional psychology). Furthermore, the little empirical support
for “foundations based on arts and science work (especially
in psychology) appears to depend less on an evidentiary base
than does support for courses seen as the province of ‘ed-
ucationists”’ (Floden & Meniketti, 2005, p. 282). That is,
educational psychology courses have less research support
for their inclusion in teacher education programs than do
courses such as curriculum methods.
ADDRESSING THESE CHALLENGES FACING
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
As we have noted already, there is a history of thoughtful
discussion and suggestions for enhancing and solidifying the
role of educational psychology in teacher education (e.g.,
Anderson et al., 1995; Peterson et al., 1990). These sugges-
tions continue to be relevant and important; here we offer
some additional thoughts.
Teaching Educational Psychology
The teaching credentials or experience of educational psy-
chology instructors in preservice teaching programs is an
important issue within teacher education programs. In many
institutions, especially large research-oriented universities,
educational psychology courses for preservice teachers are
taught predominantly by graduate students, adjunct instruc-
tors, or junior faculty. Experienced educational psycholo-
gists, with more extensive knowledge, are least likely to
teach those courses; their expertise is reserved for gradu-
ate students. Although understandable, this practice commu-
nicates to teacher educators that educational psychologists
do not view their commitment to teacher education particu-
larly highly. Furthermore, preservice teachers’ understanding
of principles from educational psychology may be compro-
mised compared to what they might learn from highly experi-
enced educational psychologists with well-developed content
knowledge. The suggestion that preservice teachers should
be taught by senior faculty is premised, however, on those fac-
ulty being familiar with K–12 classrooms, so that they can
apply their extensive knowledge of educational psychology
content to real classroom events. In many cases, it may be that
graduate students have more, or more recent, experience with
classroom teaching. From our observations, there seems to
be increased expectation for educational psychologists who
are hired to teach in those programs to have K–12 teaching
experience, apparently because such experience serves as an
indicator of credibility in the eyes of teacher educators. Thus,
in many situations, where potential instructors have one but
not both types of expertise, there may be a dilemma regard-
ing who is best qualified to teach preservice teachers. With-
out empirical research examining the relative importance of
deep content knowledge compared to practice experience,
it is difficult to make recommendations for the staffing of
teacher education programs or to advise graduate students
on the merits of gaining teaching experience.
Develop guidelines for minimal standards for instruc-
tors of educational psychology. We believe that educa-
tional psychologists’ expertise with content and classrooms
affects both their students’ learning and their teacher edu-
cation colleagues’ perceptions of them. If this is correct, it
may be beneficial for educational psychology’s professional
organization—Division 15 of APA—to discuss, create, and
publish guidelines for minimal standards for instructors of
educational psychology. At present, however, it is difficult
to make specific suggestions for these minimal standards, or
even defend the argument they should be created, because
of the paucity of supporting evidence. It would be useful to
know, for example, (a) the extent of value added for instruc-
tors having a Ph.D. in educational psychology specifically,
compared to a more limited number of graduate courses; (b)
whether students learn as well from newly graduated com-
pared to more senior educational psychologists; (c) whether
instructors being actively involved in conducting research is
associated with teaching effectiveness and student learning,
and if so, (d) whether and how the kind of research instruc-
tors are engaged in plays a role in terms of learning; (e)
whether students benefit from having an instructor with K–
12 classroom experience, and if so, (f) whether instructors

having observed or worked extensively in K–12 classrooms
can substitute for actual teaching experience. In addition,
because not all departments have instructors with extensive
content knowledge and K–12 classroom experience, it would
be useful to know whether it is preferable for instructors to
have strong content expertise but little to no classroom ex-
perience, or extensive classroom experience but only basic
content knowledge. These are all empirically researchable
questions that, to our knowledge, have not yet been investi-
gated. We believe they should be, with the results being used
to inform guidelines about minimal standards for instructors
of educational psychology.
Communicating With Teacher Educators and
Practitioners
Educational psychologists spend a lot of time communicat-
ing professionally with other educational psychologists, both
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
in their published work and at conferences. We believe it may
also be valuable to convey the contributions of educational
psychology to teacher educators. This could occur through
presentations at national teacher education conferences, such
as those sponsored by associations like the Association of
Teacher Educators; Phi Delta Kappa; and the Association of
Supervision, Curriculum, and Development. Presentations
that speak to the relevance and centrality of educational psy-
chology for learning and instruction may promote teacher
educators’ increased understanding and appreciation of ed-
ucational psychology and stimulate opportunities for future
collaborations with them. Publishing in the journals read
most often by teacher educators (e.g., Journal of Teacher Ed-
ucation; Teaching and Teacher Education) is another way for
educational psychologists to connect with those colleagues
and demonstrate that they can make relevant and important
contributions to teacher education programs. It could also go
a long way toward addressing the problem of colleagues’ mis-
conceptions about educational psychology, discussed earlier.
Communicating directly with practitioners is also impor-
tant for educational psychologists. This may be accomplished
through presentations at conferences that teachers, adminis-
trators, and parents attend, or publishing research summaries
in practitioner or policy journals. In his recent Division 15
Presidential address, Eric Anderman (2009) challenged the
audience to do just that. Publishing in practitioner journals
is a powerful way for educational psychologists to convey
widely that they do understand and value teachers’ work,
they share educators’ concerns, their discipline is relevant,
and they do have important and germane contributions to
offer educators. There are a number of relevant journals read
by educators, such as Theory into Practice, Phi Delta Kap-
pan, Educational Leadership, Young Children, The Reading
Teacher, School Science and Mathematics, and The Middle
School Journal. Furthermore, Division 15 has begun plan-
ning a new journal primarily targeting practitioners, which
will provide a forum to highlight connections of educational
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION 79
psychology, specifically, to practice. To maximize the jour-
nal’s influence, Division 15 may wish to consider ways to
encourage and afford widespread access by schools and other
educational agencies, such as subsidizing the costs, or pro-
moting the journal’s launch with free issues or presentations
at conferences.
A corollary of educational psychologists’ commitment to
contributing knowledge that is directly useful and relevant to
real classrooms and students may be that they will routinely
consider the ecological validity of their research at the same
time as they do internal validity—when designing the study.
This will most likely be prompted by changes in editorial poli-
cies, we suspect, such as those that led to the routine inclusion
of effect sizes in quantitative research. As we noted previ-
ously, we suggest that editors begin to honor both external and
internal validity by viewing both as nonnegotiable aspects of
high-quality research in educational psychology. Considering
theories, constructs, and models empirically in authentic and
complex educational environments is more than a commit-
ment to practice; as Pintrich (2001) noted, it will “contribute
to the development of a scientific educational psychology”
(p. 223).
One of the issues undoubtedly dissuading educational
psychologists from submitting their work to teacher edu-
cation or practitioner journals is that, although these outlets
have substantial readerships, they are not traditionally viewed
as primary outlets for educational psychologists. If faculty
reviewers value traditional publishing outlets substantially
more than they do teacher education or practitioner journals,
getting published in the latter journals may work against
career advancement. Furthermore, if institutions or faculty
reviewers place high regard on journals’ impact factors, in-
dividuals’ publications in practitioner journals—where the
information is used in the field rather than cited in research
journals by other academics—would need to be “in addi-
tion” to scholarly journal publication so as to not impede
career advancement. The implication, therefore, is that for
these activities to be more than sporadic they would need
to be routinely valued by educational psychologists’ peers
and recognized as legitimate productivity in faculty review
procedures.
Conducting Research About Educational
Psychology Courses
Educational psychologists’ current inability to justify empir-
ically their presence in teacher education is alarming. They
must be able to demonstrate convincingly that their courses
make a difference—that graduates will be better teachers
if they have taken courses in educational psychology than
if they did not. Furthermore, there needs to be evidence
that preservice teachers learn and understand educational
psychology content better when educational psychologists
teach those courses, rather than the content being bundled
or integrated into other subjects. At a time when teacher
 80 PATRICK, ANDERMAN, BRUENING, DUFFIN
education programs in their entirety are vulnerable, it is espe-
cially crucial that educational psychologists produce research
that demonstrates the value of their courses. The politically
based pressures that colleges of education experience from
outside, coupled with the typical distance between educa-
tional psychology faculty and other teacher educators, make
those courses particularly vulnerable.
There are many questions that researchers may wish to
investigate. For example, it would be useful to know how
well principles from educational psychology courses are un-
derstood, retained, and applied throughout teacher education
and into the early years of teaching. Studies may involve
comparisons of the knowledge and practices of preservice
and novice teachers who were taught educational psychol-
ogy content (a) by an educational psychologist with those
whose instructor came from another discipline, (b) as part of
a spiral curriculum where the content is revisited throughout
the program rather than taught in an isolated course, (c) early
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
rather than late in their teacher education program, or (d)
compared to those who did not have specialized instruction
in educational psychology content. Comparisons could be
made between students and graduates of traditional teacher
education programs and those from nontraditional or con-
densed programs. This research could be conducted collab-
oratively, with other teacher educators, as part of providing
evidence of the effectiveness of the program in general (see
Zeichner, 2005, for details of a research agenda proposed for
teacher education).
In terms of outcome measures, it would be easiest to use
data that are already being collected, such as preservice teach-
ers’ PRAXIS II exam scores, or their students’ standardized
test scores. However, measures such as those are very dis-
tal and may not be good indictors of what teachers have
learned and understood from their preservice experiences.
As Cochran-Smith (2005b) noted,
To get from teacher education to impact on pupils’ learning
requires a chain of evidence with several critical links: empir-
ical evidence demonstrating the link between teacher prepa-
ration programs and teacher candidates’ learning, empirical
evidence demonstrating the link between teacher candidates’
learning and their practices in actual classrooms, and em-
pirical evidence demonstrating the link between graduates’
practices and what and how much their pupils learn. Indi-
vidually, each of these links is complex and challenging to
estimate. When they are combined, the challenges are multi-
plied. (p. 303)
An example of researchers having used more proximal indi-
cators of teaching quality comes from Good, McCaslin, and
their colleagues’ (2006) study of 1st-year teachers’ teaching
practices. As part of examining teacher quality in relation
to the type of teacher education program attended, these re-
searchers conducted classroom observations of beginning
teachers’ lessons. Their data collection was extensive—
between 68 and 139 teachers were observed in each of three
years, across seven school districts; however, the opportunity
to gain meaningful information from the findings was also
considerable.
Researchers must take into account the variability in how
educational psychology courses are taught, including struc-
tural (e.g., class size) and instructional (e.g., nature of as-
signments, sequencing of topics) features. For example, the
conclusion that pre-K teachers’ degrees and certification did
not impact preschoolers’ learning (Early et al., 2006) has
been attributed to the researchers not accounting for variabil-
ity among programs (Bogard, Traylor, & Takanishi, 2008).
In that example, the researchers considered teachers’ high-
est degree, college major, and whether and in what levels
they were certified by the state educational agency, but not
proximal features of the teachers’ pre-K teacher education.
Invest in research. The type of research that gets con-
ducted is influenced in no small way by funding opportu-
nities. In our opinion, the strong and growing pressure for
faculty, especially those at Research Intensive universities, to
garner external funding operates generally as a disincentive
for educational psychologists to conduct the needed research
on their contribution to teacher education. Such research
would need to be rigorous, longitudinal, and large scale—in
other words, expensive. It is unlikely that most federal or
state agencies will fund research on the efficacy or value of
educational psychology courses for preservice and novice
teachers, and it also seems unrealistic to continue hoping
it will be conducted without funding. Given the scope and
complexity of the research needed, it may be prudent for ed-
ucational psychology’s own organization, APA’s Division 15,
to invest in this research.
Use research to improve preservice educational psy-
chology courses. As a final thought—how confident are
educational psychologists that teacher graduates really are
better teachers than they would have been as a result of hav-
ing taken and passed their courses? It is our premise that this
is so, however, as we noted already, this assumption must
be empirically investigated rather than taken on faith. Fur-
thermore, educational psychology is taught in many different
ways, and its efficacy is likely to differ depending on a range
of factors. For example, the quality of preservice teachers’
learning and its later application may differ for students who
learn in classes of 25 to 30 compared to those in lecture
halls of 100 to 150. Currently, there is little evidence about
the contexts that are most, or least, facilitative of learning
and its application. Educational psychologists could use re-
search findings to improve the way they teach their courses.
When speaking about the research she and her colleagues
conducted on their university’s teacher education program,
Susan Nolen (2008) reported a colleague saying, “Every
time Sue or Lani present[s] results from their work, you
can hear the sound of syllabi shredding.” Strong empirical

evidence of the most effective approaches to teaching edu-
cational psychology content could also be used by programs
and departments to strengthen their claims for resources and
personnel with their home institutions.
In summary, we believe that educational psychology as a
field has an important contribution to make to the preparation
of future teachers and a responsibility to continue to push for
greater involvement in teacher education programs. Making
the case for such continued participation, however, may de-
pend on the field’s ability to provide empirical evidence of
its relevance and effectiveness. Based on his reflection that
educational psychology theory and research has contributed
little to teachers’ practice or to policy decisions, McInerney
(2006) speculated that we may “do an inadequate job of ed-
ucating teachers” (p. 24). Although we trust that is not the
case, it would be good to know for sure.
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Anita Woolfolk Hoy for her feedback.
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009, November). Teaching for a new
world: Preparing high school educators to deliver college- and career-
ready instruction (Policy brief). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/TeachingForANewWorld.pdf
Anderman, E. (2009, August). Academic cheating. Invited presidential
address, Division 15, American Psychological Association, Toronto,
Canada.
Anderman, L. H., & Leake, V. S. (2005). The ABCs of motivation: An
alternative framework for teaching preservice teachers about motivation.
The Clearing House, 78, 192–196.
Anderson, L. M., Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P. R., Clark, C. M., Marx, R. W.,
& Peterson, P. (1995). Educational psychology for teachers: Reforming
our courses, rethinking our roles. Educational Psychologist, 30, 143–157.
Ash, M. J., & Love-Clark, P. (1985). An historical analysis of the content of
educational psychology textbooks 1954–1983. Educational Psychologist,
20, 47–55.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and
licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record, 102, 5–27.
Berliner, D. C. (1992). Telling the stories of educational psychology. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 27, 143–161.
Blumenfeld, P., & Anderson, L. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher education and edu-
cational psychology [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 31(1).
Blumenfeld, P. C., Hicks, L, & Krajcik, J. S. (1996). Teaching educational
psychology through instructional planning. Educational Psychologist, 31,
51–61.
Bogard, K., Traylor, F., & Takanishi, R. (2008). Teacher education and PK
outcomes: Are we asking the right questions? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 23, 1–6.
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L.
(2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-
Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn
and be able to do (pp. 40 – 87). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Brophy, J. (1974). Some good five-cent cigars. Educational Psychologist,
11, 46–51.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION 81
Brophy, J. (2006). Commentary: On this special issue on educational psy-
chology textbooks. Teaching Educational Psychology, 1, 1–4.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). The place of educational psychology in the study of
education. In J. Walton & J. L., Kuethe (Eds.), The discipline of education
(pp. 101–124). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Chase, C. I. (1998). A chat room—Educational psychologists but no cur-
riculum methodologists? Educational Psychology Review, 10, 239–248.
Chernobilsky, E., Dacosta, M. C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Learning
to talk the educational psychology talk through a problem-based course.
Instructional Science, 32, 319–356.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005a). The new teacher education: For better or for
worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3–17.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005b). Studying teacher education: What we know
and need to know. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 301–306.
Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J. & Demers, K.E.
(2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions
in changing contexts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). The AERA panel on research and
teacher education: Context and goals. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Ze-
ichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel
on research and teacher education (pp. 37–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher ed-
ucation: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S. J. (1973). Educational psychology: Practice what we teach. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 10, 80–86.
Dewey, J. (1998). My pedagogic creed. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander
(Eds.), The essential Dewey: Vol. 1. Pragmatism, education, democracy
(pp. 229–235). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Original work
published 1897)
Duncan, A. (2009a, October 9). A call to teaching: Secretary Arne Duncan’s
Remarks at The Rotunda at the University of Virginia. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10092009.html
Duncan, A. (2009b, October 22). Teacher preparation: Reform-
ing the uncertain profession—Remarks of Secretary Arne Dun-
can at Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html
Durwin, C. C., & Sherman, W. M. (2008). Does choice of college textbook
make a difference in students’ comprehension? College Teaching, 56,
28–34.
Early, D. M., Bryant, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Clifford, R. M., Burchinal, M. R.,
Ritchie, S., . . . Barbarin, O. (2006). Are teachers’ education, major, and
credentials related to classroom quality and children’s academic gains in
pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 174–195.
Educational Testing Service. (2004). Study guide: Principles of learning
and teaching (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Author.
Educational Testing Service. (2009). About The Praxis SeriesTM tests.
Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/praxis/about
Feldhusen, J. F. (1970). Student views of the ideal educational psychology
course. Educational Psychologist, 8, 7–9.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1976). Educational psychology and all is well. Educational
Psychologist, 12, 1–13.
Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Re-
conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in
the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom
Interaction, 36, 40–54.
Finn, C. E., & Madigan, K. (2001). Removing the barriers for teacher can-
didates. Educational Leadership, 58, 29–36.
Floden, R. E., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of course-
work in the arts and sciences and in the foundations of education. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp.
261–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 82 PATRICK, ANDERMAN, BRUENING, DUFFIN
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2004). The de-
velopment of national educational standards. Bonn, Germany: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.bmbf.de/pub/the development of national
educationel standards.pdf
Good, T. L., & Levin, J. R. (2001). Educational psychology yesterday, today,
and tomorrow: Debate and direction in an evolving field. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 69–72.
Good, T. L., McCaslin, M., Tsang, H. Y., Zhang, J., Wiley, C. R. H., Bozack,
A. R., & Hester, W. (2006). How well do 1st-year teachers teach: Does
type of preparation make a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 57,
410–430.
Greenwood, G. E., & Fillmer, H. T. (1999). Educational psychology cases
for teacher decision-making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Grossman, P. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in
research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 10–23.
Hess, F. (2001, November). Tear down this wall: The case for a rad-
ical overhaul of teacher certification (Policy report). Washington,
DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ppionline.
org/documents/teacher certification.pdf
Hilgard, E. R. (1996). History of educational psychology. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 990–1004).
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
New York, NY: Macmillan.
The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes
Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
The Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education: A report of
the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Indiana Department of Education. (2009, September 3). Summary: Indiana’s
Proposed Rules for Educator Preparation and Accountability (REPA).
Indianapolis, IN: Author.
Indiana Department of Education. (2010, January 7). Proposed Rule Revi-
sions for Educator Preparation and Accountability (REPA). Indianapolis,
IN: Author.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992).
Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and de-
velopment: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/corestrd.pdf
James, W. (1899). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some
of life’s ideals. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. J. (1998). Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs: Trans-
forming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education,
14, 175–191.
Kiewra, K. A., & Gubbels, P. S. (1997). Are educational psychol-
ogy courses educationally and psychologically sound? What text-
books and teachers say. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 121–
148.
Kossan, P. (2010. January 25). ASU plans big change in teacher
training: Less time on theory, more focus on subject. The Arizona
Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
news/articles/2010/01/25/20100125asuteachers0125.html
Krathwohl, D. R. (1974). An analysis of the perceived ineffectiveness of edu-
cational research and some recommendations. Educational Psychologist,
11, 73–86.
Leigh, A., & Mead, S. (2005, April 19). Lifting teacher performance: Pol-
icy report. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ppionline.org/documents/teachqual 0419.pdf
Liston, D., Borko, H., & Whitcomb, J. (2008). The teacher educator’s role
in enhancing teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 111–
116.
Lonka, K., Joram, E., & Bryson, M. (1996). Conceptions of learning and
knowledge: Does training make a difference? Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21, 240–260.
Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change:
The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 291–309.
McInerney, D. M. (2006). Educational psychology—Theory, research, and
teaching: A 25-year retrospective. In K. Wheldall (Ed.), Developments in
educational psychology: How far have we come in 25 years? (pp. 13–27).
New York, NY: Routledge
National Academy of Education. (2005). A good teacher in every class-
room: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San
Francisco, CA: Wiley.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008).
Unit and program standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp
Nirula, L., & Peskin, J. (2008). Bringing expert teachers into the educa-
tional psychology classroom: Using video-captured insights in case study
analysis. Teaching Educational Psychology, 1, 1–22.
Nolen, S. B. (2008, March). The development of a situative perspective on
motivation to learn. Invited address at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, New York.
Novotney, A. (2009, October). Head of the class: A new APA program
gives teachers state-of-the-art information on education and classroom
management. Monitor on Psychology, 40(9), 70–71.
Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., &
Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in
on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30,
113–137.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Commentary: Similarities and differences among
educational psychology textbooks: An author’s perspective. Teaching Ed-
ucational Psychology, 1, 1–4.
Ormrod, J. E., & McGuire, D. J. (Eds.). (2007). Case studies: Applying
educational psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Paulus, T. M., & Roberts, G. (2006). Learning through dialogue: Online case
studies in educational psychology. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 14, 731–754.
Perkins, T. (2010, April 12). Disenfranchised students—Changes at
ASU [Web forum comment]. Retrieved from AzSustainability.com:
http://azsustainability.com/2010/04/12/disenfranchised-students-as/
Peterson, P. L., Clark, D. M., & Dickson, W. P. (1990). Educational psy-
chology as a foundation in teacher education: Reforming an old notion.
Teachers College Record, 91, 322–346.
Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look
back and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221–226.
Queensland College of Teachers. (2006). Professional standards for Queens-
land teachers. Toowong, Brisbane, Australia: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.qct.edu.au/standards/index.html
Renninger, A. (1996). Learning as the focus of the educational psychology
core. Educational Psychologist, 31, 63–76.
Salomon, G. (1995). Reflections on the field of educational psychology by
the outgoing journal editor. Educational Psychologist, 30, 105–108.
Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Stevens, R. J. (1999). Addressing preservice
teachers’ conceptions of motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education,
15, 741–752.
Sawchuk, S. (2009, October 23). Duncan cites shortcomings of teacher
preparation. Education Week, 29(9). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.
org/ew/articles/2009/10/23/09teachered.h29.html?tkn=STMF6KDNK4
6s0L3HLJe58MxI0mVEJUS5gtwI
Scandura, J. M., Frase, L. T., Gagne, R., Stolurow, K., Stolurow, L., & Groen,
G. (1978). Current status and future directions of educational psychology
as a discipline. Educational Psychologist, 13, 43–56.
Seifert, K. (2008, March). Educational psychology, the PRAXIS II, and
the economy of prestige. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.
Stotsky, S. (2006). Who should be accountable for what beginning
teachers need to know? Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 256–
268.

Sudzina, M. R. (1997). Case study as a constructivist pedagogy for teach-
ing educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 199–
218.
Sutton, R. E. (2004). Teaching under high-stakes testing: Dilemmas and
decisions of a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 463–
475.
Tan, A-G. (2006). Psychology in teacher education: A perspective from
Singapore’s pre-service teachers. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7, 1–10.
Taylor, C. S., & Nolen, S. B. (1996). A contextualized approach to teaching
teachers about classroom-based assessment. Educational Psychologist,
31, 77–88.
Thorndike, E. L. (1910). The contribution of psychology to education. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 1, 5–12.
Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2007). Professional
standards for teachers. Manchester, UK: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.tda.gov.uk/teachers/professionalstandards/downloads.aspx
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wilson, S. (Chair). (2008, March). Recommended reporting practices in
teacher education research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.
Downloaded By: [Purdue University] At: 21:43 19 April 2011
Wininger, S. R., & Norman, A. D. (2005). Teacher candidates’ exposure
to formative assessment in educational psychology textbooks: A content
analysis. Educational Assessment, 10, 19–37.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION 83
Wininger, S. R., & Norman, A. D. (2010). Assessing coverage of Maslow’s
theory in educational psychology textbooks: A content analysis. Teaching
Educational Psychology, 6, 33–48.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (1996). Teaching educational psychology: Texts in context.
Educational Psychologist, 31, 41–49.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Educational psychology in teacher education.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 257–270.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008, October 17). Texts and learning to teach: One au-
thor’s view. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Num-
ber: 15418.
Zaragoza, L. (2009, May 22). UF budget cuts: $30.6 million, 58 layoffs,
program closures. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://blogs.
orlandosentinel.com/news education edblog/2009/05/uf-budget-cuts-30
6-million-55-layoffs-program-closures.html
Zeichner, K. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp.
737–759). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on
the indicators of quality. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.),
Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research
and teacher education (pp. 157–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.