Editorial: Reviews in educational psychology

Editorial on the Research Topic
Reviews in educational psychology

1 Introduction

The present article introduces the Research Topic “Reviews in educational psychology,” part of the “Reviews in” series launched by Frontiers in Psychology. This initiative highlights the growing importance of synthesis studies in consolidating knowledge and advancing the maturity of the discipline (Campos et al., 2024; Jaramillo-Mediavilla et al., 2024).

Educational Psychology, as an applied field, has reached a stage where synthesizing accumulated evidence is not only valuable but necessary. This collection showcases the diversity of review formats—systematic, theoretical, scoping, meta-analytical—and includes a comprehensive systematic review of reviews, reflecting a shift toward second-order syntheses that integrate large bodies of prior research.

Although the focus is on reviews, a small number of original studies are also featured. These contributions, some based on expert consensus or large-scale data analysis, complement the review findings by offering empirical insights into key constructs and emerging research trends.

The distribution of articles by typology and year illustrates both the scope of contributions and the growing methodological variety in the field. Together, these works demonstrate how diverse approaches—qualitative, quantitative, and mixed—contribute to a cumulative, theory-informed understanding of psychological processes in education (DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz, 2024; Kumar and DeCuir-Gunby, 2023), as summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Articles published in Special Research Topic by Typology and Year.

2 Scientific contributions

2.1 Reviews

In a context where the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has grown exponentially, a new layer of synthesis is necessary to organize the accumulated knowledge. This is precisely the aim of Díaz-Burgos et al., who conducted a systematic review of reviews encompassing 392 review studies focused on digital education and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Their work not only identifies common review typologies, regional gaps, and emerging digital tools, but also highlights the relevance of structured strategies such as PICOC or SALSA in guiding transparent and rigorous synthesis processes. By mapping current trends and research voids, this study reinforces the value of second-order syntheses as essential tools to support inclusive policies and sustainable educational practices.

Following this, several systematic reviews address key psychological constructs from diverse perspectives. Kuznetsova et al. synthesized 104 studies on giftedness, identifying cognitive, physiological, and psychological traits—especially strong performance in motivation and executive functioning—that distinguish gifted students. Taking a more experimental focus, Wang S et al. reviewed 53 studies on fixation in problem-solving and creativity, concluding that overcoming fixation substantially enhances performance in closed-ended tasks. In another vein, Wu et al. examined 18 studies on student anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that physical activity and mindfulness-based strategies are highly effective in reducing stress. Additionally, Yu synthesized 49 studies on foreign language anxiety, primarily in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, and emphasized the need for broader methodological and geographical diversity in future research.

Theoretical reviews in this issue contribute valuable conceptual advances. Bonilla-Sánchez explored neurodevelopmental disorders through qualitative neuropsychological assessment, offering a culturally sensitive alternative to traditional diagnostic models. Similarly, Stoltz et al. compared theories of consciousness development by Piaget, Vygotsky, and Steiner, integrating developmental, cultural, and holistic perspectives to enrich contemporary educational theory. In a more applied domain, Wang D and Li conducted a mini-review on career construction theory, highlighting assessment tools such as narrative methods, interviews, and digital interventions, with implications for increasingly personalized professional guidance.

Scoping reviews in this monograph examine structural and psychological aspects in doctoral experience. Hurtado et al. identified, across 32 studies, multiple factors influencing doctoral student retention—including individual, academic, socioeconomic, and institutional dimensions—proposing a multifactorial approach. In a related line, Wang Y and Li reviewed 30 studies on the impostor phenomenon among doctoral students, revealing its widespread prevalence and its impact on academic performance and psychological wellbeing. Both studies underscore the urgent need for tailored institutional support to ensure success in advanced academic stages.

Finally, the collection includes several meta-analyses that provide robust evidence on impactful educational interventions. Cochon Drouet et al. analyzed 43 studies on the Jigsaw method, identifying heterogeneous effects on achievement, motivation, and social relations, and offering context-sensitive implementation guidelines. Fan et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 30 studies examining parental involvement in student creativity, reporting a modest yet significant positive effect moderated by factors such as age and cultural background. Also focusing on learning processes, Shao et al. synthesized 46 studies on scaffolding in self-regulated learning (SRL), highlighting the effectiveness of composite tools and intelligent pedagogical agents. Zheng et al. explored the role of emotions in SRL through a meta-analysis of 23 studies, proposing a multimodal framework where positive emotions act as facilitators and negative emotions as barriers to effective self-regulation strategies. Finally, de la Fuente and Martínez-Vicente proposed a theoretical model linking stress and psychological wellbeing, outlining predictive, mediating, and functional components that may inform future intervention studies or theoretical syntheses (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Overview of Reviews in educational psychology.

Although the main focus of this Research Topic lies in review studies, several original research articles have been included due to their strong thematic alignment with the constructs and challenges identified through synthesis work. López Martínez et al. employed a Delphi method with 16 international experts to identify key indicators of verbal creativity—such as fluency, originality, and elaboration—thus offering assessment criteria that can guide future empirical research and systematic inquiry. Similarly, Romero-González et al. evaluated an active Home Literacy Environment program for children aged 6 to 8, demonstrating significant improvements in reading motivation, family relationships, and academic outcomes. While not reviews, these studies contribute grounded, context-rich evidence to key educational psychology domains addressed in the broader collection.

Other original studies in the monograph provide conceptual or methodological contributions that complement the review-based focus. Ünal et al. examined Turkish teachers' personal values and emotional responses to rational and non-rational truths, offering novel insights with implications for teacher training and professional wellbeing. Wang T et al. conducted a large-scale bibliometric analysis of 1,638 articles using dynamic topic modeling to identify evolving themes in early reading research—an approach that, while empirical, serves to map trends typically targeted by scoping reviews.

3 Conclusions

Collectively, these contributions reflect the evolving and multifaceted landscape of educational psychology research, highlighting critical issues such as creativity, emotional regulation, literacy, teacher values, and mental health in education. Each study enriches our understanding and provides practical implications, ultimately guiding educators, researchers, and policymakers toward more informed and effective practices. This compilation underscores the necessity for ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration, robust research methodologies, and continuous innovation to address educational challenges in an ever-changing global context.

Author contributions

AD-B: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JG-S: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. M-LÁ-F: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. T-CH: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work has been co-financed by the Department of Education of Castilla y León and the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) under the framework of the Predoctoral PR 2023 Call. PID2021-124011NB-I00, financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE. (Universidad de León). PID2022-136466NB-I00. Universidad de Navarra (Spain), financed by MICIN. AEI and European Social Fund. As well as own funds from the Universidad de León (Spain).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. For text translation, the ChatGPT artificial intelligence was used (GPT-4 version, ChatGPT model, source: OpenAI). All AI-generated content was manually reviewed by the author(s) to ensure its accuracy, consistency with the original content, and overall quality. This verification process aimed to guarantee the fidelity of translations. We appreciate the support of this tool in improving the accessibility and presentation of the content while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Campos, D. G., Fütterer, T., Gfrörer, T., Lavelle-Hill, R., Murayama, K., König, L., et al. (2024). Screening smarter, not harder: a comparative analysis of machine learning screening algorithms and heuristic stopping criteria for systematic reviews in educational research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36:19. doi: 10.1007/s10648-024-09862-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., and Schutz, P. A. (2024). The evolution of race-focused and race-reimaged approaches in educational psychology: future directions for the field. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36:30. doi: 10.1007/s10648-024-09873-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jaramillo-Mediavilla, L., Basantes-Andrade, A., Cabezas-González, M., and Casillas-Martín, S. (2024). Impact of gamification on motivation and academic performance: a systematic review. Educ. Sci. 14:639. doi: 10.3390/educsci14060639

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, R., and DeCuir-Gunby, J. (2023). What is the role of race in educational psychology? A review of research in educational psychologist. Educ. Psychol. 58, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2022.2137804

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar