American Behavioral Scientist

Volume 50 Number 6
February 2007 797-807
© 2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0002764206296458
Educational Psychologists http://abs.sagepub.com
hosted at
as Scientist-Practitioners http://online.sagepub.com

An Expansion of the Meaning

of a Scientist-Practitioner
Robert P. Hagstrom
Mary Kelly Fry
Leslie D. Cramblet
Kellie Tanner
Northern Arizona University

The scientist-practitioner model provided by the Boulder Conference has served as an

invaluable training model for clinical psychology. However, the goal of this article is to
expand the understanding of the role of the scientist-practitioner model to the domain of
educational psychology by providing readers with an understanding of the scope of the
traditional educational psychology degree and what the authors, as scientist-practitioners,
do in educational psychology. Information presented includes a brief history and defini-
tion of educational psychology, as well as a demonstration of the authors’ roles as psy-
chologists and the positions they take as educational psychologists in their communities.

Keywords: scientist-practitioner; educational psychology; history of educational

psychology; roles of educational psychologists

S ince its genesis, the Boulder model has served clinical psychology training
programs as a guide for creating scientist-practitioners in the clinical domain of
psychology. However, the Boulder model may be expanded or slightly modified to
include other psychological domains, such as educational psychology. The goal of
this article is to provide readers with an understanding of what the traditional edu-
cational psychology degree is and its relationship with the scientist-practitioner
model. In so doing, the authors of the current article describe briefly the history of
educational psychology and its materialization into its own genre of psychology and
offer clarification of what the educational psychology field is by describing its pur-
pose and goals as well as its main themes of research interests. A description of edu-
cational psychology training programs familiarize the reader with such programs
while elaborating on themes of research found in educational psychology and
endowing the reader with broad and stimulating examples of practice for the educa-
tional psychologist. We begin with an outline of the rich history of educational psy-
chology and its formation into its own domain of psychology.

797
798 American Behavioral Scientist

History of Educational Psychology

Like psychology, educational psychology traces its origins to philosophy

(Alexander, 2003). The writings of Greek philosophers are regarded as the origins of
both psychology and educational psychology. Particularly important to educational
psychology are the works of epistemologists and the writings of Plato and Aristotle
on education (Grinder, 1989).
Comparisons of histories of psychology and educational psychology demonstrate
that the important persons and ideas have been virtually the same for centuries (see
Charles, 1987; Grinder, 1989; Hilgard, 1987, 1996; Leahey, 2004; Viney & King,
2003; Walberg & Haertel, 1992; Watson, 1971; Wittrock, 1992). The sharing of the-
ories by theorists continued into the 17th century on through the 20th century. The
contributions of the British empiricists George Berkeley and David Hume, the British
associationists James Mill and John Stewart Mill, and the American students at
Wilhelm Wundt’s psychological laboratory—G. Stanley Hall, James McKeen Cattell,
and Charles Judd—all contributed to the development of psychology and educational
psychology (Charles, 1987; Walberg & Haertel, 1992). The development of intelli-
gence testing and the child study movement found particular application in education
and educational psychology (Walberg & Haertel, 1992). Intelligence and its relation-
ship to other variables and individual differences continue to be areas of study today
(O’Donnell & Levin, 2001). The child study movement, concerned with basing edu-
cational practices on scientific research (Walberg & Haertel, 1992), parallels the inter-
est of educational psychologists basing instruction on principles of learning.
Because of the need for training during World War II, instructional design became
an important aspect associated with educational psychology. Gagne, Skinner,
Bloom, Glaser, and Keller contributed ideas about how instruction should be orga-
nized and delivered (Walberg & Haertel, 1992). The cognitive movement in educa-
tional psychology came to prominence in the 1970s and continues to be a significant
influence. The nature of understanding, motivation, information processing, transfer,
metacognition, and an interest in computers and artificial intelligence are areas of
research that apply directly to teaching and learning (DiVesta, 1987; Walberg &
Haertel, 1992).
Differences do exist between the extensive histories of psychology and those of
educational psychology. Histories of educational psychology focus on the changing
and reoccurring ideas about knowledge, learning, instruction, and pedagogy.
Educational psychology histories concentrate on persons or movements that are also
discussed in the history or philosophy of education. The writings of Vives, Rousseau,
Pestalozzi, Froebel, Herbart, William James, and Dewey provide thoughts on the
education of individuals and the purposes of education (Charles, 1987; Hilgard,
1996). Compared to the history of psychology, the history of educational psychol-
ogy places more emphasis on the inclusion of psychology in teacher training
programs, which began as early as 1839 in the United States (Charles, 1987), and on
 Hagstrom et al. / Educational Psychologists 799

the school reform movement that was influenced by school administrators such as
W. T. Harris (Hilgard, 1996) and Charles Judd (Charles, 1987; Hilgard, 1996). The
philosophical as well as psychological writings of James and Dewey are just as
important in educational psychology (Grinder, 1989; Hilgard, 1996; Walberg &
Haertel, 1992) as they are in the philosophy and history of education.
Although E. L. Thorndike is considered the founder of educational psychology,
and his 1903 and 1921 texts on the subject defined educational psychology as a sci-
entific discipline (Walberg & Haertel, 1992), educational psychology as an applica-
tion of psychology existed much earlier (Glover & Ronning, 1987). In a synopsis of
the history of educational psychology, Glover and Ronning (1987) noted that the
beginning of the more than 100-year history of educational psychology could be
marked in various ways: the existence of a course in “mental philosophy” in 1839;
professorships in 1895; the first textbook to be titled Educational Psychology in
1886; a course labeled educational psychology in 1890; a department of educational
psychology in 1902; and a journal devoted solely to educational psychology first
published in 1910.
Like other domains of psychology, educational psychology arose from the tradi-
tional origins of philosophy and empiricism. Educational psychology also owes its
creation to the need for answers to questions concerning learning, cognition, devel-
opment, motivation, and pedagogy. It is these fundamental questions that really
define educational psychology and its purpose.

Defining the Field of Educational Psychology

Important in the history of educational psychology is the continued discussion of

the nature of the field. Glover and Ronning (1987) stated that educational psycholo-
gists have debated the identity of educational psychology since at least 1887: its
nature, definition, terms, undergraduate course work, and uniqueness when com-
pared to closely related areas such as developmental psychology, counseling and
school psychology, and tests and measurement. Glover and Ronning offered this def-
inition: “Educational psychology is the field that applies the principles of psychol-
ogy to education” (p. 9). Glover and Ronning extended the definition to include the
fact that “educational psychology conducts psychological research relevant to edu-
cation, thereby contributing original knowledge to the bases of both psychology and
education” (p. 9) and characterized educational psychology as “an empirical disci-
pline” operating “within the framework of psychological theories” and including
“theory constructors” (p. 10).
Defining the field of educational psychology and the training required of doctoral
students appears to have constituted a major focus through the more than 100-year
history of educational psychology (Wittrock & Farley, 1989). The standard defini-
tion of educational psychology, which was prepared by a committee of the Division
800 American Behavioral Scientist

of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association and accepted

by the division members in 1987, follows:

The science and profession of educational psychology is the branch of psychology that
is concerned with the development, evaluation, and application of (a) theories and prin-
ciples of human learning, teaching, and instruction and (b) theory-derived educational
materials, programs, strategies, and techniques that can enhance lifelong educational
activities and processes. (Wittrock & Farley, 1989, p. 196)

If definitions guide decisions, perhaps a scientist-practitioner-type model has

been an implicit guide in the training of educational psychologists from its inception
as an empirical discipline and its application to learning and instruction.

Areas of Research and Practice in Educational Psychology

From the early application of psychology to education, the core of educational
psychology has been the study of learning, individual differences, and measurement
(Glover & Ronning, 1987). Each area has had both a research and an application
component. Using the articles that appeared in the first volume of each decade of the
Journal of Educational Psychology during a 90-year period, O’Donnell and Levin
(2001) categorized the topic areas of educational psychology: intelligence tests and
intelligence as related to other variables; tests and measurement; learning; motiva-
tion; attitudes, affect, and personality; behavior; and others.
In their review of research topics in the Journal of Educational Psychology,
O’Donnell and Levin (2001) noted that many of the same topics that appeared in the
journal in the early 20th century have reappeared during the years and continue to be
the center of controversy. The tension between the psychological orientation to develop
theory, principles, and testing methods and the educational orientation to develop prac-
tical applications of principles in teaching and learning has existed since that time and
is reflected in journal articles (O’Donnell & Levin, 2001). This healthy tension is a
result of the position of educational psychology as a middleman (Glover & Ronning,
1987). Contrasting themes of early articles include intelligence, transfer, memory, ped-
agogy, reading, teacher roles, teacher training, and classroom methods.
When examining the most recent publication of Journal of Educational Psychology
(December 2004, on the writing of this article), themes were similar to those of early
publication with the exception of modern verbiage. Themes included reading, method-
ology, classroom practices, development, and motivation. Newer themes, including
cross-cultural studies and advances in technology, were also apparent.
The Boulder model is emphasized and practiced throughout disciplines subsumed
under the general educational psychology rubric (such as school psychologists,
school counselors, and teacher educators), as well as more traditional educational
psychology degrees. Graduate programs, as well as an up-and-coming generation of
 Hagstrom et al. / Educational Psychologists 801

professionals, recognize the importance of the reciprocal nature of research and

practice. However, this dedication, which is recognizable in our program and its mis-
sion, is relatively underrepresented in the literature. For this reason, we offer a sum-
mary of areas in which educational psychologists connect research and practice.
Although the question of proper application of the Boulder model in educational
psychology may remain, we paint a description of how this model is exemplified in
our specialty. The science we engage in is research related to our core areas of study.
From an educational psychology perspective, our “practice” is the art of instruction.
We practice teaching and teacher training.
As noted earlier, there are four primary areas of research interest that become
apparent in the literature: learning, cognition, development, and assessment and
measurement. Other areas such as pedagogy, motivation, transfer of skills/knowledge,
strategies, affect, and subject-specific areas are of concern to research and practice;
however, within the scope of this article, we focus on the primary four and their
applications to practice.
First, a question of interest is How do individuals learn (and/or learn best)? Some
specific areas include early behavioral studies and learning classifications (see
Nosofsky, Palmeri, & McKinley, 1994; Pavlov, 1927). This research is applied to
practical arenas such as pre-service and continuing teacher education programs. The
application of research is twofold: Professors are incorporating this research into
their own methodology, and pre-service/continuing teachers are taught valuable con-
cepts and pedagogy that stem from this research for use in their own classrooms.
Second, the study of memory and cognition is another important theme in educa-
tional psychology research. Although memory is important in many areas of psy-
chology, the information-processing theory of memory is an especially valuable
theory on which many facets of educational practice are based. Classic research on
mental processing, short-term/working memory capacity and duration (e.g.,
Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Craik & Lockhart, 1972;
Tolman, 1948), and more contemporary developments such as schema formation
and spread of activation (e.g., Anderson, Bothell, & Byrne, 2004) have benefited
teaching practices. Both childhood and adult educators have learned the advantages
of chunking information, presenting information in multiple formats, and presenting
information gradually with awareness of a limited memory capacity and duration
present.
A third theme of research is development. Educational psychologists recognize
the role development plays in best educational practices. From a research perspec-
tive, development is examined in regard to individual biological, social, and affec-
tive transformations. Studies in development facilitate and support instructors in
creating more individualized learning plans (Gordon & Shipman, 1979).
Fourth, assessment and measurement is a theme research educational psycholo-
gists often concern themselves with, especially given the current political focus on
standards. Quantification of “learning” has shifted to the forefront of educational pol-
802 American Behavioral Scientist

icy and affects areas such as funding, teacher pay, resource allocation and disburse-
ment, and fair and equitable opportunities for our students (e.g., No Child Left Behind
Act, 2001). This quantification is not only a political concern but also, in great part,
the core of the scientist-practitioner model among educational psychologists. Are our
theories working in practice? Are new teaching methods effective in the classroom?

Primary Roles of Educational Psychologists

In his contributing piece to Career Paths in Psychology, Robert Calfee (1997)
stated very simply, “Educational psychologists are a diverse group” (p. 32). For this
reason, it is important to make clear our place in the field of educational psychology
that is unique and different from the more applied areas of psychology (e.g., coun-
seling psychology).
Educational psychology programs are generally housed in colleges of education.
Teacher preparation is often the primary focus. Graduate students in this specialty
often teach undergraduate introductory-level courses with a focus on educational
psychology concepts as applied to the elementary, middle, or high school classroom.
In addition to the teaching and teacher training that compose our practice, time is
spent immersed in research.
Other colleges that may house educational psychology departments include psy-
chology and special education. On occasion, educational psychology may be housed as
a separate department. Depending on campus location, departments of educational psy-
chology may have differing areas of emphasis and subsequent areas of practice. At the
heart is a mission for education and teacher training, a tradition that has existed since
William James (1899/1958) wrote Talks to Teachers on Psychology and to Students on
Some of Life’s Ideal. However, areas of practice are not limited to the educational set-
ting. As professionals, we are competent to serve in fields such as the military, private
organizations, or any institution that includes education as part of its mission. As sug-
gested by Weinstein (1989), other employment settings include industrial training cen-
ters and computer-aided instruction for continuing education in corporations. According
to Weinstein, “Educational psychologists on the staffs of medical, dental, and law
schools are often involved in optimizing the teaching/learning process or in the design,
development, and management of learning assistance centers” (p. 177).

Training for Educational Psychologists: Relationship to the

Scientist-Practitioner Model

This section of the article situates the development of educational psychology in

relation to the scientist-practitioner model developed at Boulder. We also propose
possibilities for the lack of articles relating the model to educational psychology
when compared to clinical and counseling psychology. Although preparing scientist-
practitioners is part of the mission of some educational psychology programs, there
 Hagstrom et al. / Educational Psychologists 803

is a dearth of literature examining the application of this model to educational psy-

chology programs in general.
As a field of teaching, inquiry, and training, educational psychology predates the
Boulder Conference and the consequent scientist-practitioner model for training clin-
ical psychologists. The need to train competent clinical psychologists served as a cat-
alyst for Shakow’s outline of a 4-year PhD program (Baker & Benjamin, 2000). This
outline is now referred to as the scientist-practitioner model and is a product of the
original Boulder Conference. This model was generally well accepted at the time and
has become the basis for decision making for training and for the evaluation of pro-
fessional life since that time (Baker & Benjamin, 2000). Although Robert Yerkes and
a few other committee members favored a broader perspective and the inclusion of
educational psychology, industrial psychology, and social consulting in the training
model, Shakow acknowledged not only the weighting of the model toward clinical
psychology but also its adaptability to other fields of psychology with relatively few
modifications (Baker & Benjamin, 2000). Shakow’s 4-year training model included
1 year of psychology and medical science course work needed for clinical work
followed by a 2nd year of psychometrics and therapeutic principles and practices,
1 year of internship, and finally, 1 year of dissertation (Baker & Benjamin, 2000).
The fact that the scientist-practitioner model is important in clinical psychology is
almost without question: “The scientist-practitioner model is the single most important
statement of training philosophy in clinical psychology. Virtually every program either
has adopted this model or has developed an alternative model in reaction to it”
(Stricker, 2000, p. 253). O’Sullivan and Quevillon (1992) found that 97.8% of
American Psychological Association–accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs
that responded to their questionnaire reported adhering to the Boulder model. The
same study finds that of those who responded, 74.1% of American Psychological
Association–accredited clinical psychology master’s programs reported adhering to
the Boulder model. That it is written about, questioned, and debated is also acknowl-
edged by the volume of articles on the topic appearing in therapy-related journals. In
a search using the Academic Search Premier and PsycINFO databases between the
years 1942 and 2005, 264 hits registered for the term scientist practitioner model.
Journals that were cited related to clinical, counseling, and health psychology and to
a lesser extent, social work, mental health, organizational psychology, and special
education; each reflected a therapy orientation.
Although the writings of educational psychologists fill a number of journals, little
or nothing has been written about the application of the scientist-practitioner model
to educational psychology. In a search using the Academic Search Premier and
PsycINFO databases between the years 1942 and 2005, and limited to three journals,
no hits registered for the term scientist practitioner model. The journals included in
the search were Journal of Educational Psychology, Educational Psychologist, and
Contemporary Educational Psychology. This contrasts to search results in the
American Psychologist (16), Journal of Clinical Psychology (13), Journal of
804 American Behavioral Scientist

Counseling Psychology (1), The Counseling Psychologist (6), Journal of School

Psychology (0), and School Psychology Review (2) for the same period.
The scientist-practitioner model is a continuing source of discussion in psy-
chopathology and therapy-oriented fields such as clinical and counseling psychol-
ogy, social work, and organizational psychology. It does not appear to be a topic in
educational psychology. No historical precedent could be found for the use of the
scientist-practitioner model in the training of educational psychologists in the
histories of educational psychology. This fact, however, does not indicate a lack of
concern for the doctoral-level training of educational psychologists (Weinstein,
1989; Wittrock & Farley, 1989).
Perhaps the lack of articles on the scientist-practitioner model as it might relate
to educational psychology might be explained by two ideas. First, educational psy-
chology as defined by Division 15 of the American Psychological Association does
not include the application of a therapy. Therefore, there is no need to apply a model
that is designed for the training of therapy-oriented scientist-practitioners. Second,
historically, the application of psychology’s principles of learning to education has
been both implicit and explicit in the training of educational psychologists. If the latter
is true, then the use of a modified version of the model in training educational psy-
chologists predates its use in training clinical psychologists. This modified version
applied principles of learning rather than therapies.
The paucity of articles on the applicability of the scientist-practitioner model to
educational psychology engenders several questions. Does the scientist-practitioner
model apply to the doctoral training of an educational psychologist specializing in
learning and instruction? Has the 4-year model originally described by Shakow been
modified to apply to the training of educational psychologists in learning and
instruction? Is the model being applied?

Doctoral Training in Educational Psychology

It seems that if the Boulder model serves as a valid training model for clinical psy-
chology, then it should serve well in other domains of psychology. It was the general
consensus at the National Conference on Scientist-Practitioner Education and Training
for the Professional Practice of Psychology that the Boulder model was a strong model
for those psychological domains that desired the incorporation of scientific methods
and research findings into practical applications (Belar & Perry, 1992).
Interest in the training of psychologists began in the early 1900s when a commit-
tee of the American Psychological Association studied the teaching of psychology in
colleges in 1907 (Charles, 1987). A 1927 study by Robinson was the first to ask
questions about the teaching of educational psychology in colleges (Charles, 1987).
Interest in the training of educational psychologists has continued.
In a survey of graduates from a doctoral program in educational psychology at the
University of Mississippi, the graduates suggested that all major areas of study par-
ticipate in an internship or applied experience: general/teaching, school psychology,
 Hagstrom et al. / Educational Psychologists 805

gifted, counseling, industrial/organizational psychology, and research and evaluation

(Ruthven, 1990). Weinstein (1989) reported that a practicum is in place for doctoral
students studying learning, cognition, and instruction at the University of Texas at
Austin. The practicum is felt to be important because it exposes students to job areas
that may be outside that of teaching in a university (Weinstein, 1989), a growing area
of employment for educational psychologists (Glover & Ronning, 1987).
In a review of articles examining graduate curriculum in educational psychology,
House, Bratton, and Gjerde (1986) found the main areas to be research design, statis-
tics, educational measurement, test development, learning, improvement of instruction,
and human development. In addition, some authors suggested that graduates study
sociology, anthropology, psychology, and educational technology.
Wittrock (1989, 1992) and Wittrock and Farley (1989) suggested that the training
of educational psychologists must include not only the social sciences but also neu-
ropsychology, computer science, curriculum and instruction, research design, and
analysis. Methodologies should include both quantitative and qualitative approaches
to research.
Despite disagreements regarding definitions of educational psychology, doctoral
programs have graduated educational psychologists who, historically, find employ-
ment primarily in academe (Glover & Ronning, 1987), where research is a criterion
for advancement and where the application of principles of learning constitutes not
only the content but also the processes within the classroom. As noted, there are
other historical areas of employment for educational psychologists, including gov-
ernment agencies, business and industry, and nonprofit organizations. This pattern of
employment contrasts with that of clinical psychology, where only half as many
graduates enter academe (Glover & Ronning, 1987). This suggests that educational
psychologists may use the scientist-practitioner model more so than many clinical
practitioners. Perhaps historical employment differences help explain the small
number of journal articles applying the scientist-practitioner model to the training of
educational psychologists compared to practitioners such as clinical and counseling
psychologists.

Conclusion

The scientist-practitioner model that emerged from the Boulder Conference has
without question served clinical psychology and other areas such as counseling and
school psychology as a viable and valuable training model. It should now be appar-
ent that educational psychology has also benefited from training that parallels that of
the Boulder model and educational psychologists are indeed scientist-practitioners.
Our practice is the proper application of instructional techniques and theories to edu-
cate teachers or train employees by doing and understanding our science: the
research we are so passionate about. As with any psychological profession, educa-
tional psychology would not serve society without a solid understanding of the
806 American Behavioral Scientist

theoretical foundations of learning and instruction. As educational psychologists, we

strive to assist those in our communities by providing the best possible instruction to
those seeking strategies to attain knowledge. We feel confident in our abilities to pro-
vide such instruction because of the invaluable training we have received through the
scientist-practitioner tradition.
The future of educational psychology seems firmly rooted in theoretical research.
However, research focusing on the actual training models as well as on the scientist-
practitioner model used in educational psychology programs is sparse. It is clear that
investigations into this topic are required and would likely further the many realms
of training in which the scientist-practitioner model is applicable.

References
Alexander, P. A. (2003). Coming home: Educational psychology’s philosophical pilgrimage. Educational
Psychologist, 38, 129-132.
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., & Byrne, M. D. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological
Review, 111, 1036-1061.
Atkinson, J. R., & Shiffrin, 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 90-195).
London: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. L. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learn-
ing and motivation (Vol. VIII, pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press.
Baker, D. B., & Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner: A look back at
Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241-247.
Belar, C. D., & Perry, N. W. (1992). National conference on scientist-practitioner education and training
for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 71-75.
Calfee, R. (1997). Learning about learning: Psychologists in schools of education. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
Career paths in psychology: Where your degree can take you (pp. 31-48). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Charles, D. C. (1987). The emergence of educational psychology. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.),
Historical foundations of educational psychology (pp. 17-38). New York: Plenum.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
DiVesta, F. J. (1987). The cognitive movement and education. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.),
Historical foundations of educational psychology (pp. 203-233). New York: Plenum.
Glover, J. A., & Ronning, R. R. (1987). Introduction. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Historical
foundations of educational psychology (pp. 3-15). New York: Plenum.
Gordon, E. W., & Shipman, S. (1979). Human diversity, pedagogy, and educational equity. American
Psychologist, 34, 1030-1036.
Grinder, R. E. (1989). Educational psychology: The master science. In M. C. Wittrock & F. Farley (Eds.),
The future of educational psychology (pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Perspectives on educational psychology. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.),
Historical foundations of educational psychology (pp. 415-423). New York: Plenum.
Hilgard, E. R. (1996). History of educational psychology. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 990-1004). New York: Macmillan.
House, J. D., Bratton, B., & Gjerde, C. L. (1986, January). Longitudinal curriculum changes in instructional
design and educational psychology doctoral programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of
 Hagstrom et al. / Educational Psychologists 807

the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, NV. (ERIC Document
Reproductive Service No. ED267777)
James, W. (1958). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideal. New York:
Norton. (Original work published 1899)
Leahey, T. H. (2004). A history of psychology: Main currents in psychological thought (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification
learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
O’Donnell, A. M., & Levin, J. R. (2001). Educational psychology’s healthy growing pains. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 73-82.
O’Sullivan, J. J., & Quevillon, R. P. (1992). Is the Boulder model still alive? American Psychologist, 47,
67-70.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Ruthven, A. J. (1990, November). Follow-up study of doctoral program graduates and their employers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 327078)
Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist-practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 55,
253-254.
Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208.
Viney, W., & King, D. B. (2003). A history of psychology: Ideas and context (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, G. D. (1992). Educational psychology’s first century. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 6-19.
Watson, R. I. (1971). The great psychologists: From Aristotle to Freud. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Weinstein, C. E. (1989). Educating educational psychologists. In M. C. Wittrock & F. Farley (Eds.), The
future of educational psychology (pp. 173-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). An empowering conception of educational psychology. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 129-141.
Wittrock, M. C., & Farley, F. (1989). Towards a blueprint for educational psychology. In M. C. Wittrock
& F. Farley (Eds.), The future of educational psychology (pp. 193-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Robert P. Hagstrom is currently the director of research and development for the Flagstaff Unified
School District. He is finalizing a dissertation on the timing of feedback and test anxiety as well as teach-
ing undergraduate courses for the College of Education at Northern Arizona University. Free time is hap-
pily spent with his wife, Andrea, and son, Garrett.

Mary Kelly Fry is nearing completion of her PhD in educational psychology. Her dissertation examines
factors of student retention in higher education. She has taught undergradute courses and graduate courses
in educational psychology, research, and development.

Leslie D. Cramblet received her PhD in educational psychology from Northern Arizona University in
2005. She is currently an assistant professor at Adams State College in Alamosa, Colorado. Her research
interests include achievement motivation and college student learning.

Kellie Tannner is nearing completion of her doctoral dissertation concerning the cognitive abilities and
coping mechanisms of an aging population. She is currently working in the Clark County School District
in Las Vegas, Nevada.