educational journal articles

The American Educational Research Journal ( AERJ ) is the flagship journal of the American Educational Research Association, featuring articles that advance the empirical, theoretical, and methodological understanding of education and learning. It publishes original peer-reviewed analyses that span the field of education research across all subfields and disciplines and all levels of analysis. It also encourages submissions across all levels of education throughout the life span and all forms of learning. AERJ welcomes submissions of the highest quality, reflecting a wide range of perspectives, topics, contexts, and methods, including interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work.

Impact Factor : 3.6 5-Year Impact Factor : 5.7

Download PDF

• AERJ Editor Team Extended Two Additional Years AERA is pleased to announce that the co-editor team for the  American Educational Research Journal  will be extended for two additional years through 2024.  Read more  in the November 2021 AERA Highlights  
• The Centennial Issue of AERJ Available Open Access The special Centennial Issue of AERJ , "Education Research for the Next 100 Years - A Renewed Vision of Interdisciplinarity for the New AERJ ," is available  here .

Journal of Educational Psychology

• Read this journal
• Read free articles
• Journal snapshot
• Advertising information

Journal scope statement

The main purpose of the Journal of Educational Psychology ® is to publish original, primary psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels. A secondary purpose of the journal is the occasional publication of exceptionally important meta-analysis articles that are pertinent to educational psychology. Please note, the journal does not typically publish reliability and validity studies of specific tests or assessment instruments.

Disclaimer: APA and the editors of Journal of Educational Psychology assume no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by the authors of its articles

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Journal of Educational Psychology supports equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in its practices. More information on these initiatives is available under EDI Efforts .

Open science

The APA Journals Program is committed to publishing transparent, rigorous research; improving reproducibility in science; and aiding research discovery. Open science practices vary per editor discretion. View the initiatives implemented by this journal .

Editor’s Choice

Each issue of Journal of Educational Psychology will honor one accepted manuscript per issue by selecting it as an “ Editor’s Choice ” paper. Selection is based on the discretion of the editor if the paper offers an unusually large potential impact to the field and/or elevates an important future direction for science.

Author and editor spotlights

Explore journal highlights : free article summaries, editor interviews and editorials, journal awards, mentorship opportunities, and more.

Prior to submission, please carefully read and follow the submission guidelines detailed below. Manuscripts that do not conform to the submission guidelines may be returned without review.

To submit to the editorial office of Panayiota Kendeou, please submit manuscripts electronically through the Manuscript Submission Portal in Microsoft Word (.docx) or LaTex (.tex) as a zip file with an accompanied Portable Document Format (.pdf) of the manuscript file.

Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7 th edition. Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual ). APA Style and Grammar Guidelines for the 7 th edition are available.

The Journal of Educational Psychology publishes direct replications. Submissions should include “A Replication of XX Study” in the subtitle of the manuscript as well as in the abstract.

Submit Manuscript

Panayiota Kendeou, PhD, editor University of Minnesota

General correspondence may be directed to the editor's office .

In addition to addresses and phone numbers, please supply email addresses, as most communications will be by email. Fax numbers, if available, should also be provided for potential use by the editorial office and later by the production office.

The Journal of Educational Psychology ® is now using a software system to screen submitted content for similarity with other published content. The system compares the initial version of each submitted manuscript against a database of 40+ million scholarly documents, as well as content appearing on the open web. This allows APA to check submissions for potential overlap with material previously published in scholarly journals (e.g., lifted or republished material).

Transparency and openness

APA endorses the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines by a community working group in conjunction with the Center for Open Science ( Nosek et al. 2015 ). As outlined in Dr. Panayiota Kendeou's inaugural editorial ( Kendeou, 2021 ), empirical research, including meta-analyses, submitted to the  Journal of Educational Psychology  must meet the “disclosure” level for all eight aspects of research planning and reporting. Authors should include a subsection in the method section titled “Transparency and Openness.” This subsection should detail the efforts the authors have made to comply with the TOP guidelines. For example:

• We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study, and the study follows JARS (Applebaum, et al., 2018). All data, analysis code, and research materials are available at [stable link to permanent repository]. Data were analyzed using R, version 4.0.0 (R Core Team, 2020) and the package ggplot , version 3.2.1 (Wickham, 2016). This study’s design and its analysis were not pre-registered.

Data, materials, and code

Authors must state whether data and study materials are posted to a trusted repository and, if so, how to access them. Recommended repositories include APA’s repository on the Open Science Framework (OSF), or authors can access a full list of other recommended repositories . Trusted repositories adhere to policies that make data discoverable, accessible, usable, and preserved for the long term. Trusted repositories also assign unique and persistent identifiers.

In a subsection titled "Transparency and Openness" at the end of the Method section, specify whether and where the data and material will be available or include a statement noting that they are not available. For submissions with quantitative or simulation analytic methods, state whether the study analysis code is posted to a trusted repository, and, if so, how to access it.

For example:

• All data have been made publicly available at the [trusted repository name] and can be accessed at [persistent URL or DOI].
• Materials and analysis code for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author.
• Materials and analysis code for this study are not available.
• The code behind this analysis/simulation has been made publicly available at the [trusted repository name] and can be accessed at [persistent URL or DOI].

Preregistration of studies and analysis plans

Preregistration of studies and specific hypotheses can be a useful tool for making strong theoretical claims. Likewise, preregistration of analysis plans can be useful for distinguishing confirmatory and exploratory analyses. Investigators are encouraged to preregister their studies and analysis plans prior to conducting the research via a publicly accessible registry system (e.g., OSF , ClinicalTrials.gov, or other trial registries in the WHO Registry Network).

There are many available templates; for example, APA, the British Psychological Society, and the German Psychological Society partnered with the Leibniz Institute for Psychology and Center for Open Science to create Preregistration Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology (Bosnjak et al., 2022).

We recognize that there may be good reasons to change the analysis plan after it has been preregistered, and thus encourage authors to do so when appropriate so long as all changes are clearly and transparently disclosed in the manuscript.

Articles must state whether or not any work was preregistered and, if so, where to access the preregistration. If any aspect of the study is preregistered, include the registry link in the method section.

• This study’s design was preregistered prospectively, before data were collected; see [STABLE LINK OR DOI].
• This study’s design and hypotheses were preregistered after data had been collected but before analyses were undertaken; see [STABLE LINK OR DOI].
• This study’s analysis plan was preregistered; see [STABLE LINK OR DOI].
• This study was not preregistered.

Open science badges

Starting in 2020, articles are eligible for open science badges recognizing publicly available data, materials, and/or preregistration plans and analyses. These badges are awarded on a self-disclosure basis .

Applying for open science badges is optional.

At submission, authors must confirm that criteria have been fulfilled in a  signed badge disclosure form (PDF, 33KB) that must be submitted as supplemental material. If all criteria are met as confirmed by the editor, the form will then be published with the article as supplemental material.

Authors should also note their eligibility for the badge(s) in the cover letter.

For all badges, items must be made available on an open-access repository with a persistent identifier in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent. For the preregistered badge, this is an institutional registration system.

Data and materials must be made available under an open license allowing others to copy, share, and use the data, with attribution and copyright as applicable.

Available badges are:

• Registered Reports

The journal now also invites submission of Registered Reports. We are particularly interested in Registered Reports for intervention studies and secondary data analyses. Registered reports require a two-stage review process. You can find specific instructions for submitting Registered Reports online (PDF, 247KB) .

Stage 1 is the submission of the registration, so-called Stage 1 manuscript. This is a partial manuscript that includes introduction, theoretical framework, rationale for the study, hypotheses, experimental design, and methods (including an analysis plan). The partial manuscript will be reviewed for significance, theoretical framework, methodological approach, and analysis plan.

If the Stage 1 Registered Report manuscript receives an “in-principal acceptance (IPA)” it means that the study has the potential to be published if is performed exactly as proposed (also including the proposed statistical evaluation) regardless of the outcome of the study. After this stage and before data collection begins the study is pre-registered (e.g., through the Registered Report tools from OSF ).

In Stage 2, the full paper undergoes a second peer-review process, checking if the study protocol was implemented and if the reasons for potential changes were acceptable. Nevertheless, a rejection is still possible, namely if the study’s execution and analysis diverged too much from the proposed study design and/or the manuscript is low quality. The refinement of the discussion and conclusions may still require further revision, but the process will be expedited.

Author contribution statements using CRediT

The APA Publication Manual ( 7th ed. ) , which stipulates that "authorship encompasses…not only persons who do the writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions to a study." In the spirit of transparency and openness, the journal has adopted the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to describe each author's individual contributions to the work. CRediT offers authors the opportunity to share an accurate and detailed description of their diverse contributions to a manuscript.

Submitting authors will be asked to identify the contributions of all authors at initial submission according to the CRediT taxonomy. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the CRediT designations will be published as an author contributions statement in the author note of the final article. All authors should have reviewed and agreed to their individual contribution(s) before submission.

CRediT includes 14 contributor roles, as described below:

• Conceptualization : Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.
• Data curation : Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.
• Formal analysis : Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.
• Funding acquisition : Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.
• Investigation : Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.
• Methodology : Development or design of methodology; creation of models.
• Project administration : Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.
• Resources : Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.
• Software : Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components.
• Supervision : Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.
• Validation : Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.
• Visualization : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.
• Writing—original draft : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).
• Writing—review and editing : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision: including pre- or post-publication stages.

Authors can claim credit for more than one contributor role, and the same role can be attributed to more than one author. Not all roles will be applicable to any particular scholarly work.

Manuscript preparation

Double-space your manuscript. Other formatting instructions, as well as instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts, appear in the Publication Manual . Additional guidance on APA Style is available on the APA Style website .

Masked review policy

The journal has adopted a policy of masked review for all submissions, which means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are masked. The cover letter should include all authors' names and institutional affiliations. The first page of text should omit this information but should include the title of the manuscript and the date it is submitted.

Every effort should be made to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues to the authors' identity, including grant numbers, names of institutions providing IRB approval, self-citations, and links to online repositories for data, materials, code, or preregistrations (e.g., Create a View-only Link for a Project ). Authors should never use first person (I, my, we, our) when referring to a study conducted by the author(s) or when doing so reveals the authors' identities, e.g., "in our previous work, Johnson et al., 1998 reported that…" Instead, references to the authors' work should be in third person, e.g., "Johnson et al. (1998) reported that…."

Please note that if you include masked references in your manuscript, the editor requests that you identify these references in your cover letter, so that the editors can see which articles are being referenced in your submission.

Include the title of the manuscript along with all authors' names and institutional affiliations in the cover letter. The first page of the manuscript should omit the authors' names and affiliations, but should include the title of the manuscript and the date it is submitted.

Word limits

Manuscripts should generally not exceed 12,000 words (approximately 40 double-spaced pages in 12-point Times New Roman font), not including references, tables, figures, and appendixes. Editors may return manuscripts longer than 12,000 words for revision if they think the paper is too long. This will involve asking the authors to shorten the paper and return it as a new submission.

Manuscript guidelines

Adequate description of participants and measures are critical to the science and practice of educational psychology; this allows readers to assess the results, determine generalizability of findings, and make comparisons in replications, extensions, literature reviews, or secondary data analyses. Authors should see guidelines for participants and measures (including reliability and validity evidence) in the Publication Manual .

Appropriate indexes of effect size or strength of relationship should be incorporated in the results section of the manuscript (refer of the Publication Manual ). Information that allows the reader to assess not only the significance but also the magnitude of the observed effects or relationships clarifies the importance of the findings.

Abstract and keywords

All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 250 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases.

Journal Article Reporting Standards

Authors are encouraged to consult the APA Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. Updated in 2018, the standards offer ways to improve transparency in reporting to ensure that readers have the information necessary to evaluate the quality of the research and to facilitate collaboration and replication.

The new JARS:

• recommend the division of hypotheses, analyses, and conclusions into primary, secondary, and exploratory groupings to allow for a full understanding of quantitative analyses presented in a manuscript and to enhance reproducibility;
• offer modules for authors reporting on N-of-1 designs, replications, clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and observational studies, as well as the analytic methods of structural equation modeling and Bayesian analysis; and
• include guidelines on reporting on registration (including making protocols public); participant characteristics, including demographic characteristics; inclusion and exclusion criteria; psychometric characteristics of outcome measures and other variables; and planned data diagnostics and analytic strategy.

The journal also encourages the use of the 21-word statement, reporting (1) how the sample size was determined, (2) all data exclusions, (3) all manipulations, and (4) all study measures. See Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn (2012) for details; include the following statement in the method section:

• We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.

List references in alphabetical order. Each listed reference should be cited in text, and each text citation should be listed in the references section.

Examples of basic reference formats:

Journal article

McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review , 126 (1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000126

Authored book

Brown, L. S. (2018). Feminist therapy (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000092-000

Chapter in an edited book

Balsam, K. F., Martell, C. R., Jones. K. P., & Safren, S. A. (2019). Affirmative cognitive behavior therapy with sexual and gender minority people. In G. Y. Iwamasa & P. A. Hays (Eds.), Culturally responsive cognitive behavior therapy: Practice and supervision (2nd ed., pp. 287–314). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000119-012

Data set citation

Alegria, M., Jackson, J. S., Kessler, R. C., & Takeuchi, D. (2016). Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES), 2001–2003 [Data set]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20240.v8

Software/Code citation

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.  Journal of Statistical Software , 36(3), 1–48. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/

Wickham, H. et al., (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4 (43), 1686, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

All data, program code and other methods must be cited in the text and listed in the references section.

Use Word's Insert Table function when you create tables. Using spaces or tabs in your table will create problems when the table is typeset and may result in errors.

Preferred formats for graphics files are TIFF and JPG, and preferred format for vector-based files is EPS. Graphics downloaded or saved from web pages are not acceptable for publication. Multipanel figures (i.e., figures with parts labeled a, b, c, d, etc.) should be assembled into one file. When possible, please place symbol legends below the figure instead of to the side.

• All color line art and halftones: 300 DPI
• Black and white line tone and gray halftone images: 600 DPI

Line weights

• Color (RGB, CMYK) images: 2 pixels
• Grayscale images: 4 pixels
• Stroke weight: 0.5 points

APA offers authors the option to publish their figures online in color without the costs associated with print publication of color figures.

The same caption will appear on both the online (color) and print (black and white) versions. To ensure that the figure can be understood in both formats, authors should add alternative wording (e.g., “the red (dark gray) bars represent”) as needed.

For authors who prefer their figures to be published in color both in print and online, original color figures can be printed in color at the editor's and publisher's discretion provided the author agrees to pay:

• $900 for one figure
• An additional $600 for the second figure
• An additional $450 for each subsequent figure

Display equations

We strongly encourage you to use MathType (third-party software) or Equation Editor 3.0 (built into pre-2007 versions of Word) to construct your equations, rather than the equation support that is built into Word 2007 and Word 2010. Equations composed with the built-in Word 2007/Word 2010 equation support are converted to low-resolution graphics when they enter the production process and must be rekeyed by the typesetter, which may introduce errors.

To construct your equations with MathType or Equation Editor 3.0:

• Go to the Text section of the Insert tab and select Object.
• Select MathType or Equation Editor 3.0 in the drop-down menu. If you have an equation that has already been produced using Microsoft Word 2007 or 2010 and you have access to the full version of MathType 6.5 or later, you can convert this equation to MathType by clicking on MathType Insert Equation. Copy the equation from Microsoft Word and paste it into the MathType box. Verify that your equation is correct, click File, and then click Update. Your equation has now been inserted into your Word file as a MathType Equation.

Computer code

Because altering computer code in any way (e.g., indents, line spacing, line breaks, page breaks) during the typesetting process could alter its meaning, we treat computer code differently from the rest of your article in our production process. To that end, we request separate files for computer code.

In online supplemental materials

We request that runnable source code be included as supplemental material to the article. For more information, visit Supplementing Your Article With Online Material .

In the text of the article

If you would like to include code in the text of your published manuscript, please submit a separate file with your code exactly as you want it to appear, using Courier New font with a type size of 8 points. We will make an image of each segment of code in your article that exceeds 40 characters in length. (Shorter snippets of code that appear in text will be typeset in Courier New and run in with the rest of the text.) If an appendix contains a mix of code and explanatory text, please submit a file that contains the entire appendix, with the code keyed in 8-point Courier New.

Submitting supplemental materials

APA can place supplemental materials online, available via the published article in the PsycArticles® database. Please see  Supplementing Your Article With Online Material  for more details.

Educational impact and implications statement

Please submit a short statement of 2–3 sentences, entitled "Educational impact and implications statement." It should be inserted after the abstract on the revised manuscript file and should be written in plain English for the educated public. These statements should summarize the article's findings and why they are important. To be maximally useful, these statements should provide a bottom-line, take-home message that is accurate and easily understood. In addition, they should be able to be translated into media-appropriate statements for use in press releases and on social media (e.g., Twitter). Please refer to the Guidance for Translational Abstracts and Public Significance Statements page to help you write these statements.

Permissions

Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide to the editor on final acceptance all necessary permissions to reproduce in print and electronic form any copyrighted work, including test materials (or portions thereof), photographs, and other graphic images (including those used as stimuli in experiments).

On advice of counsel, APA may decline to publish any image whose copyright status is unknown.

• Download Permissions Alert Form (PDF, 13KB)

Academic writing and English language editing services

Authors who feel that their manuscript may benefit from additional academic writing or language editing support prior to submission are encouraged to seek out such services at their host institutions, engage with colleagues and subject matter experts, and/or consider several vendors that offer discounts to APA authors . Please note that APA does not endorse or take responsibility for the service providers listed. It is strictly a referral service. Use of such service is not mandatory for publication in an APA journal. Use of one or more of these services does not guarantee selection for peer review, manuscript acceptance, or preference for publication in any APA journal.

Publication policies

For full details on publication policies, including use of Artificial Intelligence tools, please see APA Publishing Policies .

APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications.

See also APA Journals® Internet Posting Guidelines .

APA requires authors to reveal any possible conflict of interest in the conduct and reporting of research (e.g., financial interests in a test or procedure, funding by pharmaceutical companies for drug research).

• Download Full Disclosure of Interests Form (PDF, 41KB)

Ethical Principles

It is a violation of APA Ethical Principles to publish "as original data, data that have been previously published" (Standard 8.13).

On occasion it may be appropriate to publish several reports referring to the same database. The author should inform the editor at the time of submission about all previously published or submitted reports and their relation to the current submission, so the editor can judge if the article represents a new contribution. Readers also should be informed; the text of an article should cite other reports that used the same sample (or a subsample) or the same data and methods.

In addition, APA Ethical Principles specify that "after research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release" (Standard 8.14).

APA expects authors to adhere to these standards. Specifically, APA expects authors to have their data available throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication.

Authors are required to state in writing that they have complied with APA ethical standards in the treatment of their sample, human or animal, or to describe the details of treatment.

• Download Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles Form (PDF, 26KB)

Other information

See APA’s Publishing Policies page for more information on publication policies, including information on author contributorship and responsibilities of authors, author name changes after publication, the use of generative artificial intelligence, funder information and conflict-of-interest disclosures, duplicate publication, data publication and reuse, and preprints.

Visit the Journals Publishing Resource Center for more resources for writing, reviewing, and editing articles for publishing in APA journals.

Panayiota Kendeou, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Associate editors

Olusola Adesope, PhD Washington State University, United States

Daniel Ansari, PhD The University of Western Ontario, Canada

Jason Anthony, PhD University of South Florida, United States

Matthew L. Bernacki, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Rebecca Collie, PhD University of New South Wales, Australia

Jill Fitzgerald, PhD The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Samuel Greiff, PhD University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Beth Kurtz-Costes, PhD The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Alexandra List, PhD Pennsylvania State University, United States

Doug Lombardi, PhD University of Maryland, United States

Jamaal Matthews, PhD University of Michigan, United States

Jeannette Mancilla-Martinez, EdD Vanderbilt University, United States

Matthew T. McCrudden, PhD Pennsylvania State University, United States

Kristen McMaster, PhD University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, United States

Krista Muis, PhD McGill University, Canada

Erika Patall, PhD University of Southern California, United States

Tobias Richter, DPhil Wurzburg University, Germany

Rod Roscoe, PhD Arizona State University Polytechnic, United States

Haley Vlach, PhD University of Wisconsin–Madison, United States

Editorial fellows

Jimena Cosso, PhD The Pennsylvania State University, United States

Vanessa W. Vongkulluksn, PhD University of Nevada Las Vegas, United States

Alyssa Emery, PhD Iowa State University, United States

Jackie Eunjung Relyea, PhD North Carolina State University, United States

Nigel Mantou Lou, PhD University of Victoria, Canada

Consulting editors

Stephen Aguilar, PhD University of Southern California, United States

Patricia A. Alexander, PhD University of Maryland, United States

Laura Allen, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Ariel Aloe, PhD University of Iowa, United States

Rui Alexandre Alves, PhD University of Porto, Portugal

Eric M. Anderman, PhD The Ohio State University, United States

David Aparisi, PhD University of Alicante, Spain

Shannon Audley, PhD Smith College, United States

Christine L. Bae, PhD Virginia Commonwealth University, United States

Drew Bailey, PhD University of California Irvine, United States

Christina Barbieri, PhD University of Delaware, United States

Marcia Barnes, PhD Vanderbilt University, United States

Sarit Barzilai, PhD University of Haifa, Israel

Adar Ben-Eliyahu, PhD University of Haifa, Israel

Sebastian Bergold, PhD TU Dortmund University, Germany

Gina Biancarosa, EdD University of Oregon, United States

Catherine Bohn-Gettler, PhD College of Saint Benedict/St. John's University, United States

Mimi Bong, PhD Korea University, South Korea

Geoffrey D. Borman, PhD University of Wisconsin–Madison, United States

Nigel Bosch, PhD University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, United States

Keiko Bostwick, PhD University of New South Wales, Australia

Ryan P. Bowles, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Jason Braasch, PhD Georgia State University, United States

Lee Branum-Martin, PhD Georgia State University, United States

Ivar Bråten, PhD University of Oslo, Norway

Anne Britt, PhD Northern Illinois, United States

Okan Bulut, PhD University of Alberta, Canada

Irena Burić, PhD University of Zadar, Croatia

Emma Burns, PhD Macquarie University, Australia

Matthew Burns, PhD University of Missouri, United States

Fabrizio Butera, PhD University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Andrew Butler, PhD Washington University in St. Louis, United States

Jeffrey Bye, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Christy Byrd, PhD North Carolina State University, United States

Maria Carlo, PhD University of South Florida, United States

Gina Cervetti, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Yi-Ling Cheng, PhD Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan

Jason A. Chen, PhD College of William & Mary, United States

Chia-Yi Chiu, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Eunsoo Cho, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Jason Chow, PhD University of Maryland, United States

David Coker, EdD University of Delaware, United States

Donald Compton, PhD Florida State University, United States

Pierre Cormier, PhD Université de Moncton, Canada

Scotty D. Craig, PhD Arizona State University, United States

Jennifer G. Cromley, PhD University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States

Ting Dai, PhD University of Illinois Chicago, United States

Samantha Daley, EdD University of Rochester, United States

Lia Daniels, PhD University of Alberta, Canada

Bert De Smedt, PhD Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

David DeLiema, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Denis Dumas, PhD University of Georgia, United States

Alexa Ellis, PhD University of Alabama, United States

Logan Fiorella, PhD University of Georgia, United States

D. Jake Follmer, PhD West Virginia University, United States

Carlton Fong, PhD Texas State University, United States

Barbara R. Foorman, PhD Florida State University, United States

David Francis, PhD University of Houston, United States

Jan C. Frijters, PhD Brock University, Canada

Lynn S. Fuchs, PhD Vanderbilt University, United States

Emily R. Fyfe, PhD Indiana University, United States

David Galbraith, MC University of Southampton, United Kingdom

Dragan Gasevic, PhD Monash University, Australia

Hanna Gaspard, PhD Technische Universität Dortmund, Germany

Hunter Gehlbach, PhD John Hopkins University, United States

Amy Gillespie Rouse, PhD Southern Methodist University, United States

Susan R. Goldman, PhD University of Illinois, Chicago, United States

Arthur Graesser, PhD University of Memphis, United States

Steve Graham, PhD Arizona State University, United States

DeLeon L. Gray, PhD North Carolina State University, United States

Jeffrey Alan Greene, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

John T. Guthrie, PhD University of Maryland College Park, United States

Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume, PhD Georgia Southern University, United States

Peter Halpin, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Karen R. Harris, EdD Arizona State University, United States

Courtney Hattan, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Michael A. Hebert, PhD University of California Irvine, United States

Paul R. Hernandez, PhD Texas A&M University, United States

Flaviu Adrian Hodis, PhD Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

HyeJin Hwang, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Michelle Hurst, PhD Rutgers University, United States

Thormod Idsøe, PhD University of Oslo, Norway

Kalypso Iordanou, PhD University of Central Lancashire Cyprus, Cyprus

Allison Jeager, PhD Mississippi State University, United States

Marcus Johnson, PhD University of Cincinnati, United States

Nancy C. Jordan, EdD University of Delaware, United States

Avi Kaplan, PhD Temple University, United States

Sihui (Echo) Ke, PhD University of Kentucky, United States

Michael Kieffer, EdD New York University, United States

Carita Kiili, PhD Tampere University, Finland

Nana Kim, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Yeo-eun Kim, PhD Florida State University, United States

Young-Suk Kim, PhD University of California Irvine, United States

Robert M. Klassen, PhD University of York, United Kingdom

Thilo Kleickmann, PhD Kiel University, Germany

Uta Klusmann, PhD Kiel University, Germany

Alison C. Koenka, PhD The University of Oklahoma, United States

Paulina Kulesz, PhD University of Houston, United States

Revathy Kumar, PhD University of Toledo, United States

Shelbi Kuhlmann, PhD University of Memphis, United States

Marko Lüftenegger, PhD University of Vienna, Austria

Karin Landerl, PhD University of Graz, Austria

Nicole Landi, PhD University of Connecticut, United States

Fani Lauermann, PhD Technische Univeristät Dortmund, Germany

Rebecca Lazarides, PhD University of Potsdam, Germany

Pui-Wa Lei, PhD Pennsylvania State University, United States

Erica Lembke, PhD University of Missouri, Columbia, United States

Xiaodong Lin, PhD Columbia University, United States

Tzu-Jung Lin, PhD The Ohio State University, United States

Lisa Linnenbrink- Garcia, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Nikki Lobczowski, PhD McGill University, Canada

Jessica Logan, PhD Vanderbilt University, United States

Francesca Lopez, PhD Pennsylvania State University, United States

David Lubinski, PhD Vanderbilt University, United States

Oliver Lüdtke, PhD Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Germany

Joseph P. Magliano, PhD Georgia State University, United States

Gwen C. Marchand, PhD University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States

Scott Marley, PhD Arizona State University, United States

Jacob M. Marszalek, PhD University of Missouri–Kansas City, United States

Andrew J. Martin, PhD University of New South Wales, Australia

Lucia Mason, PhD Padova University, Italy

Richard E. Mayer, PhD University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

Catherine McBride, PhD Purdue University, United States

Kathryn McCarthy, PhD Georgia State University, United States

Leigh McLean, PhD University of Delaware, United States

David Miele, PhD Boston College, United States

Caitlin Mills, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Katherine Muenks, PhD University of Texas at Austin, United States

P. Karen Murphy, PhD Pennsylvania State University, United States

Benjamin Nagengast, PhD University of Tübingen, Germany

Johannes Naumann, PhD University of Wuppertal, Germany

Kristie J. Newton, PhD Temple University, United States

Tuan D. Nguyen, PhD Kansas State University, United States

Christoph Niepel, PhD University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Nikos Ntoumanis, PhD University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

E. Michael Nussbaum, PhD University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States

Fred Paas, PhD Erasmus University Rotterdam & University of Wollongong, the Netherlands

Steven Pan, PhD National University of Singapore, Singapore

Reinhard Pekrun, PhD University of Munich, Germany

Peng Peng, PhD University of Texas at Austin, United States

Eija Pakarinen, PhD University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Tony Perez, PhD Old Dominion University, United States

Yaacov Petscher, PhD Florida State University, United States

Stephen Peverly, PhD Columbia University, United States

Emily Phillips Galloway, EdD Vanderbilt University, United States

Shayne Piasta, PhD The Ohio State University, United States

Patrick Proctor, EdD Boston College, United States

Karen E. Rambo-Hernandez, PhD Texas A&M University, United States

Martina Rau, PhD University of Wisconsin–Madison, United States

Jenni Redifer, PhD Western Kentucky University, United States

Jackie Relyea, PhD North Carolina State University, United States

Gert Rijlaarsdam, PhD University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Greg Roberts, PhD University of Texas at Austin, United States

Kristy A. Robinson, PhD McGill University, Canada

Julian Roelle, PhD Ruhr University Bochum, Germany

Emily Rosenzweig, PhD University of Georgia, United States

Cary Roseth, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Teya Rutherford, PhD University of Delaware, United States

John Sabatini, PhD University of Memphis, United States

Lalo Salmerón, PhD University of Valencia, Spain

Tanya Santangelo, PhD Arcadia University, United States

Chris Schatschneider, PhD Florida State University, United States

Katharina Scheiter, PhD Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Germany

Ulrich Schiefele, PhD University of Potsdam, Germany

Jennifer A. Schmidt, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Sascha Schroeder, PhD University of Göttingen, Germany

Dale H. Schunk, PhD University of North Carolina at Greensboro, United States

Malte Schwinger, PhD Universität Marburg, Germany

Corwin Senko, PhD State University of New York at New Paltz, United States

Priti Shah, PhD University of Michigan, United States

Gale M. Sinatra, PhD University of Southern California, United States

Olivenne Skinner, PhD Wayne State University, United States

Benjamin Solomon, PhD University at Albany, United States

Susan Sonnenschein, PhD University of Maryland, Baltimore County, United States

Jörn Sparfeledt, PhD University of Saarbrucken, Germany

Elsbeth Stern, PhD Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland

H. Lee Swanson, PhD University of New Mexico, United States

Ian Thacker, PhD University of Texas–San Antonio, United States

Keith William Thiede, PhD Boise State University, United States

Theresa A. Thorkildsen, PhD University of Illinois Chicago, United States

Minna Torppa, PhD University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Gregory Trevors, PhD University of Southern Carolina, United States

Yuuko Uchikoshi, EdD University of California, Davis, United States

Timothy L. Urdan, PhD Santa Clara University, United States

Ellen L. Usher, PhD Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, United States

Keisha Varma, PhD University of Minnesota, United States

Regina Vollmeyer, PhD Goethe-Universität, Germany

Vanessa Vongkulluksn, PhD University of Las Vegas–Nevada, United States

Zhenhong Wang, PhD Shaanxi Normal University, China

Zhe Wang, PhD Texas A&M University, United States

Jeanne Wansek, PhD Vanderbilt University, United States

Christopher A. Was, PhD Kent State University, United States

Kathryn Wentzel, PhD The University of Maryland, United States

Kay Wijekumar, PhD University of Texas, United States

Jeffrey Williams, PhD University of South Florida, United States

Joanna P. Williams, PhD Columbia University, United States

Joshua Wilson, PhD University of Delaware, United States

Phillip H. Winne, PhD Simon Fraser University, Canada

Kui Xie, PhD Michigan State University, United States

Christoph Zangger, PhD University of Bern, Switzerland

Matthew Zajic, PhD Columbia University, United States

Cristina D. Zepeda, PhD Vanderbilt University, United States

Haomin (Stanley) Zhang, PhD East China Normal University, China

Li-Fang Zhang, PhD The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Steffen Zitzmann, PhD Eberhard Karls Universitat Tubingen, Germany

Sharon Zumbrunn, PhD Virginia Commonwealth University, United States

Abstracting and indexing services providing coverage of Journal of Educational Psychology ®

• Academic OneFile
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Complete
• Academic Search Elite
• Academic Search Index
• Academic Search Premier
• Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Psychology
• Child Development & Adolescent Studies
• Current Abstracts
• Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences
• EBSCO MegaFILE
• Education Abstracts
• Education Full Text
• Education Research Complete
• Education Source
• Educational Administration Abstracts
• Educational Research Abstracts Online
• Educator's Reference Complete
• ERIH (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)
• Expanded Academic ASAP
• General OneFile
• Higher Education Abstracts
• Humanities and Social Sciences Index Retrospective
• Humanities Index Retrospective
• IBZ / IBR (Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur)
• InfoTrac Custom
• Journal Citations Report: Social Sciences Edition
• Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts
• MasterFILE Complete
• MasterFILE Elite
• MasterFILE Premier
• MLA International Bibliography
• NSA Collection
• OmniFile Full Text Mega
• Professional Collection
• Professional Development Collection
• Professional ProQuest Central
• ProQuest Central
• ProQuest Discovery
• ProQuest Education Journals
• ProQuest Platinum Periodicals
• ProQuest Professional Education
• ProQuest Psychology Journals
• ProQuest Research Library
• Psychology Collection
• Research into Higher Education Abstracts
• RILM Abstracts of Music Literature
• Social Sciences Citation Index
• Social Sciences Index Retrospective
• Studies on Women and Gender Abstracts
• Teacher Reference Center
• TOC Premier

Transparency and Openness Promotion

APA endorses the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines by a community working group in conjunction with the Center for Open Science ( Nosek et al. 2015 ). The TOP Guidelines cover eight fundamental aspects of research planning and reporting that can be followed by journals and authors at three levels of compliance.

• Level 1: Disclosure—The article must disclose whether or not the materials are posted to a trusted repository.
• Level 2: Requirement—The article must share materials via a trusted repository when legally and ethically permitted (or disclose the legal and/or ethical restriction when not permitted).
• Level 3: Verification—A third party must verify that the standard is met.

As outlined in Dr. Panayiota Kendeou's inaugural editorial ( Kendeou, 2021 ), empirical research, including meta-analyses, submitted to the J ournal of Educational Psychology  must, at a minimum, meet Level 1 (Disclosure) for all eight aspects of research planning and reporting. Authors should include a subsection in their methods description titled “Transparency and openness.” This subsection should detail the efforts the authors have made to comply with the TOP guidelines.

The list below summarizes the minimal TOP requirements of the journal. Please refer to the Center for Open Science TOP guidelines for details, and  contact the editor  (Panayiota Kendeou, PhD) with any further questions. APA recommends sharing data, materials, and code via  trusted repositories (e.g.,  APA’s repository  on the Open Science Framework (OSF)). Trusted repositories adhere to policies that make data discoverable, accessible, usable, and preserved for the long term. Trusted repositories also assign unique and persistent identifiers.

We encourage investigators to preregister their studies and to share protocols and analysis plans prior to conducting the research. There are many available preregistration forms (e.g., the APA Preregistration for Quantitative Research in Psychology template, ClininalTrials.gov , or other preregistration templates available via OSF ). Completed preregistration forms should be posted on a publicly accessible registry system (e.g., OSF , ClinicalTrials.gov, or other trial registries in the WHO Registry Network).

A list of participating journals is also available from APA.

The following list presents the eight fundamental aspects of research planning and reporting, the TOP level required by the  J ournal of Educational Psychology , and a brief description of the journal's policy.

• Citation: Level 1, Disclosure—All data, program code, and other methods developed by others should be cited in the text and listed in the references section.
• Data Transparency: Level 1, Disclosure—Article states whether the raw and/or processed data on which study conclusions are based are posted to a trusted repository and, if so, how to access them.
• Analytic Methods (Code) Transparency: Level 1, Disclosure—Article states whether computer code or syntax needed to reproduce analyses in an article is posted to a trusted repository and, if so, how to access it.
• Research Materials Transparency: Level 1, Disclosure—Article states whether materials described in the method section are posted to a trusted repository and, if so, how to access them.
• Design and Analysis Transparency (Reporting Standards): Level 1, Disclosure—The journal encourages the use of APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards ([JARS-Quant, JARS-Qual, and/or MARS]). The journal also encourages the use of the 21-word statement, reporting 1) how the sample size was determined, 2) all data exclusions, 3) all manipulations, and 4) all study measures. See  Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn (2012) for details.
• Study Preregistration: Level 1, Disclosure—Article states whether the study design and (if applicable) hypotheses of any of the work reported was preregistered and, if so, how to access it. Authors may submit a masked copy via stable link or supplemental material or may provide a link after acceptance.
• Analysis Plan Preregistration: Level 1, Disclosure—Article states whether any of the work reported preregistered an analysis plan and, if so, how to access it. Authors may submit a masked copy via stable link or supplemental material or may provide a link after acceptance.
• Replication: Level 1, Disclosure—The journal publishes replications.

Other open science initiatives

• Open Science badges: Offered
• Public significance statements: Offered
• Author contribution statements using CRediT: Offered
• Registered Reports: Published
• Replications: Published

Explore open science at APA .

Inclusive study designs

Definitions and further details on inclusive study designs are available on the Journals EDI homepage .

Inclusive reporting standards

• Bias-free language and community-driven language guidelines (required)
• Author contribution roles using CRediT (required)
• Data sharing and data availability statements (required)
• Impact statements (required)
• Participant sample descriptions (required)

More information on this journal’s reporting standards is listed under the submission guidelines tab .

Pathways to authorship and editorship

Principal reviewer board.

This journal offers a principal reviewer board for early career researchers.

Other EDI offerings

Masked peer review.

This journal offers masked peer review (where both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are not known to the other). Research has shown that masked peer review can help reduce implicit bias against traditionally female names or early-career scientists with smaller publication records (Budden et al., 2008; Darling, 2015).

Announcements

• Inaugural editorial: Enhancing research excellence through diversity and transparency by Editor Panayiota Kendeou, PhD

Editor Spotlight

• Read an interview with Editor Panayiota Kendeou, PhD

From APA Journals Article Spotlight ®

• Can learning science help children learn to read?
• How effective are intelligent tutoring systems?
• How to group students into classrooms to increase overall learning
• Effects of metacognitive instruction on learning and motivation

Journal Alert

Sign up to receive email alerts on the latest content published.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

Subscriptions and access

• Pricing and individual access
• APA PsycArticles database

Calls for Papers

Access options

• APA publishing resources
• Educators and students
• Editor resource center

APA Publishing Insider

APA Publishing Insider is a free monthly newsletter with tips on APA Style, open science initiatives, active calls for papers, research summaries, and more.

Social media

Contact Journals

On The Site

Harvard educational review.

Edited by Maya Alkateb-Chami, Jane Choi, Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith, Ron Grady, Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson, Pennie M. Gregory, Jennifer Ha, Woohee Kim, Catherine E. Pitcher, Elizabeth Salinas, Caroline Tucker, Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah

Individuals

Institutions.

• Read the journal here

Journal Information

• ISSN: 0017-8055
• eISSN: 1943-5045
• Keywords: scholarly journal, education research
• First Issue: 1930
• Frequency: Quarterly

Description

The Harvard Educational Review (HER) is a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. The Editorial Board aims to publish pieces from interdisciplinary and wide-ranging fields that advance our understanding of educational theory, equity, and practice. HER encourages submissions from established and emerging scholars, as well as from practitioners working in the field of education. Since its founding in 1930, HER has been central to elevating pieces and debates that tackle various dimensions of educational justice, with circulation to researchers, policymakers, teachers, and administrators.

Our Editorial Board is composed entirely of doctoral students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education who review all manuscripts considered for publication. For more information on the current Editorial Board, please see here.

A subscription to the Review includes access to the full-text electronic archives at our Subscribers-Only-Website .

Editorial Board

2023-2024 Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board Members

Maya Alkateb-Chami Development and Partnerships Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Maya Alkateb-Chami is a PhD student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the role of schooling in fostering just futures—specifically in relation to language of instruction policies in multilingual contexts and with a focus on epistemic injustice. Prior to starting doctoral studies, she was the Managing Director of Columbia University’s Human Rights Institute, where she supported and co-led a team of lawyers working to advance human rights through research, education, and advocacy. Prior to that, she was the Executive Director of Jusoor, a nonprofit organization that helps conflict-affected Syrian youth and children pursue their education in four countries. Alkateb-Chami is a Fulbright Scholar and UNESCO cultural heritage expert. She holds an MEd in Language and Literacy from Harvard University; an MSc in Education from Indiana University, Bloomington; and a BA in Political Science from Damascus University, and her research on arts-based youth empowerment won the annual Master’s Thesis Award of the U.S. Society for Education Through Art.

Jane Choi Editor, 2023-2025

Jane Choi is a second-year PhD student in Sociology with broad interests in culture, education, and inequality. Her research examines intra-racial and interracial boundaries in US educational contexts. She has researched legacy and first-generation students at Ivy League colleges, families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and parents of pre-K and kindergarten-age children in the New York City School District. Previously, Jane worked as a Research Assistant in the Family Well-Being and Children’s Development policy area at MDRC and received a BA in Sociology from Columbia University.

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith Content Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith is a fourth-year Education PhD student in the Human Development, Learning and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A former public middle and high school mathematics teacher and department chair, she is interested in understanding the mechanisms that contribute to disparities in secondary mathematics education, particularly how teacher beliefs and biases intersect with the social-psychological processes and pedagogical choices involved in math teaching. Jeannette holds an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she studied as an Urban Scholar and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.

Ron Grady Editor, 2023-2025

Ron Grady is a second-year doctoral student in the Human Development, Learning, and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His central curiosities involve the social worlds and peer cultures of young children, wondering how lived experience is both constructed within and revealed throughout play, the creation of art and narrative, and through interaction with/production of visual artifacts such as photography and film. Ron also works extensively with educators interested in developing and deepening practices rooted in reflection on, inquiry into, and translation of the social, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of their classroom ecosystems. Prior to his doctoral studies, Ron worked as a preschool teacher in New Orleans. He holds a MS in Early Childhood Education from the Erikson Institute and a BA in Psychology with Honors in Education from Stanford University.

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson Editor, 2023-2024

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson is a first year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership(EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her ultimate quest is to position all students as drivers of their destiny. Phoebe is passionate about early learning and literacy. She is committed to ensuring that districts and school leaders, have the necessary tools to create equitable learning organizations that facilitate the academic and social well-being of all students. Phoebe is particularly interested in the intersection of homeless students and literacy. Prior to her doctoral studies, Phoebe was a Special Education Instructional Specialist. Supporting a portfolio of more than thirty schools, she facilitated the rollout of New York City’s Special Education Reform. Phoebe also served as an elementary school principal. She holds a BS in Inclusive Education from Syracuse University, and an MS in Curriculum and Instruction from Pace University.

Pennie M. Gregory Editor, 2023-2024

Pennie M. Gregory is a second-year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership (EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Pennie was born in Incheon, South Korea and raised in Gary, Indiana. She has decades of experience leading efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities first as a special education teacher and then as a school district special education administrator. Prior to her doctoral studies, Pennie helped to create Indiana’s first Aspiring Special Education Leadership Institute (ASELI) and served as its Director. She was also the Capacity Events Director for MelanatED Leaders, an organization created to support educational leaders of color in Indianapolis. Pennie has a unique perspective, having worked with members of the school community, with advocacy organizations, and supporting state special education leaders. Pennie holds an EdM in Education Leadership from Marian University.

Jennifer Ha Editor, 2023-2025

Jen Ha is a second-year PhD student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research explores how high school students learn to write personal narratives for school applications, scholarships, and professional opportunities amidst changing landscapes in college access and admissions. Prior to doctoral studies, Jen served as the Coordinator of Public Humanities at Bard Graduate Center and worked in several roles organizing academic enrichment opportunities and supporting postsecondary planning for students in New Haven and New York City. Jen holds a BA in Humanities from Yale University, where she was an Education Studies Scholar.

Woohee Kim Editor, 2023-2025

Woohee Kim is a PhD student studying youth activists’ civic and pedagogical practices. She is a scholar-activist dedicated to creating spaces for pedagogies of resistance and transformative possibilities. Shaped by her activism and research across South Korea, the US, and the UK, Woohee seeks to interrogate how educational spaces are shaped as cultural and political sites and reshaped by activists as sites of struggle. She hopes to continue exploring the intersections of education, knowledge, power, and resistance.

Catherine E. Pitcher Editor, 2023-2025

Catherine is a second-year doctoral student at Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Culture, Institutions, and Society program. She has over 10 years of experience in education in the US in roles that range from special education teacher to instructional coach to department head to educational game designer. She started working in Palestine in 2017, first teaching, and then designing and implementing educational programming. Currently, she is working on research to understand how Palestinian youth think about and build their futures and continues to lead programming in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. She holds an EdM from Harvard in International Education Policy.

Elizabeth Salinas Editor, 2023-2025

Elizabeth Salinas is a doctoral student in the Education Policy and Program Evaluation concentration at HGSE. She is interested in the intersection of higher education and the social safety net and hopes to examine policies that address basic needs insecurity among college students. Before her doctoral studies, Liz was a research director at a public policy consulting firm. There, she supported government, education, and philanthropy leaders by conducting and translating research into clear and actionable information. Previously, Liz served as a high school physics teacher in her hometown in Texas and as a STEM outreach program director at her alma mater. She currently sits on the Board of Directors at Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America, a nonprofit organization working to diversify the leadership pipeline in the United States. Liz holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in higher education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Caroline Tucker Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Caroline Tucker is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the history and organizational dynamics of women’s colleges as women gained entry into the professions and coeducation took root in the United States. She is also a research assistant for the Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Initiative’s Subcommittee on Curriculum and the editorial assistant for Into Practice, the pedagogy newsletter distributed by Harvard University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning. Prior to her doctoral studies, Caroline served as an American politics and English teaching fellow in London and worked in college advising. Caroline holds a BA in History from Princeton University, an MA in the Social Sciences from the University of Chicago, and an EdM in Higher Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah (Kickapoo, Sac & Fox) is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Their research explores how settler colonialism is addressed in K-12 history and social studies classrooms in the United States. Prior to their doctoral studies, Kemeyawi taught middle and high school English and history for eleven years in Boston and New York City. They hold an MS in Middle Childhood Education from Hunter College and an AB in Social Studies from Harvard University.

Submission Information

Click here to view submission guidelines .

Contact Information

Click here to view contact information for the editorial board and customer service .

Subscriber Support

Individual subscriptions must have an individual name in the given address for shipment. Individual copies are not for multiple readers or libraries. Individual accounts come with a personal username and password for access to online archives. Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail.

Institutional rates apply to libraries and organizations with multiple readers. Institutions receive digital access to content on Meridian from IP addresses via theIPregistry.org (by sending HER your PSI Org ID).

Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail. If you have questions about using theIPregistry.org you may find the answers in their FAQs. Otherwise please let us know at [email protected] .

How to Subscribe

To order online via credit card, please use the subscribe button at the top of this page.

To order by phone, please call 888-437-1437.

Checks can be mailed to Harvard Educational Review C/O Fulco, 30 Broad Street, Suite 6, Denville, NJ 07834. (Please include reference to your subscriber number if you are renewing. Institutions must include their PSI Org ID or follow up with this information via email to [email protected] .)

Permissions

Click here to view permissions information.

Article Submission FAQ

Submissions, question: “what manuscripts are a good fit for her ”.

Answer: As a generalist scholarly journal, HER publishes on a wide range of topics within the field of education and related disciplines. We receive many articles that deserve publication, but due to the restrictions of print publication, we are only able to publish very few in the journal. The originality and import of the findings, as well as the accessibility of a piece to HER’s interdisciplinary, international audience which includes education practitioners, are key criteria in determining if an article will be selected for publication.

We strongly recommend that prospective authors review the current and past issues of HER to see the types of articles we have published recently. If you are unsure whether your manuscript is a good fit, please reach out to the Content Editor at [email protected] .

Question: “What makes HER a developmental journal?”

Answer: Supporting the development of high-quality education research is a key tenet of HER’s mission. HER promotes this development through offering comprehensive feedback to authors. All manuscripts that pass the first stage of our review process (see below) receive detailed feedback. For accepted manuscripts, HER also has a unique feedback process called casting whereby two editors carefully read a manuscript and offer overarching suggestions to strengthen and clarify the argument.

Question: “What is a Voices piece and how does it differ from an essay?”

Answer: Voices pieces are first-person reflections about an education-related topic rather than empirical or theoretical essays. Our strongest pieces have often come from educators and policy makers who draw on their personal experiences in the education field. Although they may not present data or generate theory, Voices pieces should still advance a cogent argument, drawing on appropriate literature to support any claims asserted. For examples of Voices pieces, please see Alvarez et al. (2021) and Snow (2021).

Question: “Does HER accept Book Note or book review submissions?”

Answer: No, all Book Notes are written internally by members of the Editorial Board.

Question: “If I want to submit a book for review consideration, who do I contact?”

Answer: Please send details about your book to the Content Editor at [email protected].

Manuscript Formatting

Question: “the submission guidelines state that manuscripts should be a maximum of 9,000 words – including abstract, appendices, and references. is this applicable only for research articles, or should the word count limit be followed for other manuscripts, such as essays”.

Answer: The 9,000-word limit is the same for all categories of manuscripts.

Question: “We are trying to figure out the best way to mask our names in the references. Is it OK if we do not cite any of our references in the reference list? Our names have been removed in the in-text citations. We just cite Author (date).”

Answer: Any references that identify the author/s in the text must be masked or made anonymous (e.g., instead of citing “Field & Bloom, 2007,” cite “Author/s, 2007”). For the reference list, place the citations alphabetically as “Author/s. (2007)” You can also indicate that details are omitted for blind review. Articles can also be blinded effectively by use of the third person in the manuscript. For example, rather than “in an earlier article, we showed that” substitute something like “as has been shown in Field & Bloom, 2007.” In this case, there is no need to mask the reference in the list. Please do not submit a title page as part of your manuscript. We will capture the contact information and any author statement about the fit and scope of the work in the submission form. Finally, please save the uploaded manuscript as the title of the manuscript and do not include the author/s name/s.

Invitations

Question: “can i be invited to submit a manuscript how”.

Answer: If you think your manuscript is a strong fit for HER, we welcome a request for invitation. Invited manuscripts receive one round of feedback from Editors before the piece enters the formal review process. To submit information about your manuscript, please complete the Invitation Request Form . Please provide as many details as possible. The decision to invite a manuscript largely depends on the capacity of current Board members and on how closely the proposed manuscript reflects HER publication scope and criteria. Once you submit the form, We hope to update you in about 2–3 weeks, and will let you know whether there are Editors who are available to invite the manuscript.

Review Timeline

Question: “who reviews manuscripts”.

Answer: All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Board composed of doctoral students at Harvard University.

Question: “What is the HER evaluation process as a student-run journal?”

Answer: HER does not utilize the traditional external peer review process and instead has an internal, two-stage review procedure.

Upon submission, every manuscript receives a preliminary assessment by the Content Editor to confirm that the formatting requirements have been carefully followed in preparation of the manuscript, and that the manuscript is in accord with the scope and aim of the journal. The manuscript then formally enters the review process.

In the first stage of review, all manuscripts are read by a minimum of two Editorial Board members. During the second stage of review, manuscripts are read by the full Editorial Board at a weekly meeting.

Question: “How long after submission can I expect a decision on my manuscript?”

Answer: It usually takes 6 to 10 weeks for a manuscript to complete the first stage of review and an additional 12 weeks for a manuscript to complete the second stage. Due to time constraints and the large volume of manuscripts received, HER only provides detailed comments on manuscripts that complete the second stage of review.

Question: “How soon are accepted pieces published?”

Answer: The date of publication depends entirely on how many manuscripts are already in the queue for an issue. Typically, however, it takes about 6 months post-acceptance for a piece to be published.

Submission Process

Question: “how do i submit a manuscript for publication in her”.

Answer: Manuscripts are submitted through HER’s Submittable platform, accessible here. All first-time submitters must create an account to access the platform. You can find details on our submission guidelines on our Submissions page.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Education articles from across Nature Portfolio

Latest research and reviews.

Climate change education in Indonesia’s formal education: a policy analysis

• Kelvin Tang

Co-designing inclusive excellence in higher education: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the ideal online learning environment using the I-TPACK model

• Liesbet Saenen
• Katrien Hermans
• Elke Emmers

The impact of premature birth on auditory-visual processes in very preterm schoolchildren

• Marion Décaillet
• Solange Denervaud
• Juliane Schneider

Exploring the impact of web-based inquiry on elementary school students’ science identity development in a STEM learning unit

• Xinning Pei

Forming a new prospective memory intention can reduce prospective memory commission errors

Predictive analysis of college students’ academic procrastination behavior based on a decision tree model

• Xiangwei Liu
• Xiangmei Zhu

News and Comment

I want universities to put breastfeeding on their gender pay gap agenda

Unsupportive university policies force parents to make choices about how to feed their baby. Ernestine Gheyoh Ndzi, an expert in employment law and advocate for parental rights in the UK, tells us why this needs to change.

• Ernestine Gheyoh Ndzi

All STEM students should learn inclusive science communication

Science communication often assumes a ‘deficit’ in knowledge on behalf of the recipient, but this deficit-based approach is inequitable and ineffective. We must train all STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) students in inclusive science communication, which uses collaboration with diverse people to address misinformation and solve socioscientific issues.

• Nicole C. Kelp
• Ashley A. Anderson
• Joy C. Enyinnaya

Securing your science: the researcher’s guide to financial management

Lab money management is an important, yet overlooked, professional skill for researchers.

Advancing computational sustainability in higher education

• Mayank Kejriwal
• Victoria Petryshyn

Why female students at an inner London school are seeing scientists in a different light

Julie Gould describes what happened after showing 50 images of working scientists to a bunch of 12–13 year-olds.

• Julie Gould

Improving academic mentorship practices

Mentorship from experienced peers critically improves individual career development and satisfaction in academia, but we have little information on how researchers are supported. We identify and recommend strategies for faculty members, departments, institutions and funders to ensure sustained excellence in academic mentorship.

• Sarvenaz Sarabipour
• Paul Macklin
• Natalie M. Niemi

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(7); 2024 Apr 15
• PMC11004524

Educational technologies and elementary level education – A bibliometric review of scopus indexed journal articles

Sheena lovia boateng.

a University of Ghana Business School, P O Box LG 78, Legon, Accra, Ghana

Obed Kwame Adzaku Penu

Richard boateng, joseph budu.

b School of Technology, Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration, Ghana

John Serbe Marfo

c Business School, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Private Mail Bag, University Post Office, Kumasi, Ghana

Pasty Asamoah

Associated data.

Data will be made available on request.

This bibliometric study critically analyses 293 journal articles from the Scopus database, charting the trajectory of educational technology in primary and elementary education from 1986 to 2023. While limited to practical applications within primary or elementary contexts and excluding various scholarly work forms, the research unveils crucial insights. A significant uptick in publications during 2008–2016 and 2018–2023 highlights the growing importance and incorporation of digital technologies in early education. The analysis identifies recurrent themes like teacher education, game-based learning, and collaborative learning, pointing towards future research directions. The study also notes underexplored areas, including technology's role in specific subjects, ethical student engagement, gender and disability dynamics, and contributions from African contexts. It advocates for increased international collaboration, with a focus on partnerships with predominant Chinese institutions. Despite its limitations, this paper is foundational for future research, offering a roadmap for a nuanced understanding of technology's impact on young learners' educational experiences and outcomes globally.

1. Introduction

The role and impact of technologies on teaching and learning are indispensable, as emphasized by various studies [ 1 , 2 ]. The inception of educational technology may be traced back to the 1920s when radios were initially introduced into schools [ 3 ]. Throughout the years, several technologies have been introduced. These technological advancements include the adoption of overhead projectors in the 1930s, the utilization of videotapes and projectors in the 1950s, the gradual incorporation of mainframes and mini-frame computers into certain elementary school classrooms in the 1960s, the introduction of handheld calculators in the 1970s, the emergence of the first personal computers like laptops in the 1980s, and the subsequent introduction of the internet, smartboards, and interactive whiteboards in the 1990s [ 4 ]. The continuous progress of technology in educational environments has continually pushed the boundaries of learning to unprecedented levels.

In contemporary society, technology-assisted education is increasingly crucial [ 5 ], expanding the scope of teaching and learning activities beyond traditional environments [ 6 ]. Educational technologies facilitate the creation of teaching and learning opportunities for all, supporting student learning, teaching, and assessment [ 7 ]. Research on technology use in education has become a vibrant field [ 8 ], with a particular focus by some scholars on the use of educational technology at the primary and elementary levels.

Although there have been bibliometric reviews on educational technology (e.g. Refs. [ [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] ]), a review concentrating specifically on studies at the primary or elementary level is absent. Hence, a need for this review. The study by Chen et al. [ 9 ] was a bibliometric analysis of the publications published by the “British Journal of Educational Technology” from 1971 to 2018, while Phillips and Ologun [ 10 ] conducted a bibliometric review of the current literature in learning analytics in relation to educational technologies. Also, Chen et al. [ 11 ] used the bibliometric technique to analyse the trend in education technology research in a top-ranked called “Journal Computers & Education”, while Elra Perdima et al. [ 12 ] present a bibliometric review of SCOPUS-indexed journal articles on educational technology in physical education learning. This review is important in that while educational technologies continue to revolutionise teaching and learning [ 13 ], the landscape of the studies that have been done on these technologies at the primary or elementary level of education, to the best of our knowledge appears to be an area that has not been brought to the fore. Hence, this review will bring to the fore what has been explored by scholars and propose other areas that scholars can consider by way of future research.

Literature within a specific research field is often reviewed using bibliometrics [ 14 , 15 ], an analytical technique that applies mathematical and statistical methods to the analysis of academic publications [ 16 ]. For instance, Chen et al. [ 9 ] undertook a bibliometric analysis of 3710 publications indexed in the Web of Science and published in the British Journal of Educational Technology from 1971 to 2018. Phillips and Ozogul [ 10 ], as well as Chen et al. [ 11 ], conducted similar analyses on learning analytics in educational technologies and a 40-year period of the Computers and Education journal articles, respectively. Additionally, Perdima et al. [ 12 ] analysed journal articles in the Scopus database related to educational technology in physical education. However, none of these reviews addressed studies on educational technology at the primary or elementary education level.

Bibliometric analysis proves useful in assessing and evaluating scholarly research output [ 17 ], identifying prominent researchers, establishing frameworks for assessing advancements, creating measures to evaluate scholarly output, identifying trending research topics, and generating valuable insights to guide future research [ 18 ]. It has been extensively used to overview research across various topics and disciplines, including but not limited to digital marketing (Krashen et al., 2021 [ 19 ]), digital technologies in healthcare [ 20 , 21 ], digital platforms in public administration [ 22 ], social media in tourism [ [23] , [24] , [25] ], artificial intelligence in supply chain management (Riahi [ 26 , 27 ], smart technologies in urban planning [ 28 ], and financial technologies [ 29 ].

A thorough review of journal articles pertaining to educational technologies in primary or elementary education will offer insights into the development and status of technology in education at these levels. Such a review can encapsulate the status and trajectory of educational technology during the formative years of child development, addressing the following research questions.

• 1. What is the volume, growth trajectory, and geographic distribution of education technology in primary or elementary school education?
• 2. What journals, authors, and articles have evidenced the greatest impact?
• 3. What topical foci have attracted the greatest attention from scholars on primary or elementary school education technology?
• 4. What are the future research directions on education technology at the primary or elementary school level?

With the advent of technology-assisted education becoming more crucial in the contemporary educational landscape [ 5 ], it is imperative to understand its application and impact, especially in primary and elementary education, where foundational learning and development occur. The study aims to fill a gap in the existing literature by concentrating on educational technology at primary and elementary levels—a focus area often overlooked in previous bibliometric reviews (e.g., Refs. [ [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] ]. Through employing bibliometric analysis, the study not only evaluates and assesses scholarly output but also identifies influential researchers, trending topics, and provides valuable insights to guide future research in the field, building on the work of past scholars [ 17 , 18 ].

The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section two outlines the methodology, detailing the search procedures employed to identify literature pertinent to educational technology in primary or elementary school education. Section three unveils the results, while section four engages in a discussion of these findings and underscores potential thematic areas warranting future research. Lastly, section five presents conclusions and suggests prospective directions for future research on educational technologies within primary or elementary educational contexts.

2. Methodology

This study adopted a bibliometric analysis technique. Bibliometric analysis enables researchers to understand a particular subject's research status and trend [ 11 ].

2.1. Search criteria

To access and evaluate the volume of work in the topical area without imposing a time constraint, this review did not define a specific time scope. It confined its topical scope to scholarly articles that examined “educational technology” OR “educational technologies” in conjunction with “primary school,” “primary education,” “elementary school,” or “elementary education.” The inclusion of studies on “primary education,” “elementary school,” or “elementary education” helped ascertain the depth of research focusing on the adoption and utilization of educational technologies at the primary or elementary level of education. The review exclusively considered publications indexed by Scopus, a database commonly employed for research reviews [ 30 , 31 ]. Although the Web of Science (WoS) is frequently used for research reviews, recent scholarly findings suggest that Scopus may be a superior option due to its extensive coverage of relevant journals, particularly for research reviews in social science, business, and management [ 31 , 32 ].

The search criteria were designed to exclude books, book chapters, reviews, and conference papers not published in English, with the rationale that relying solely on peer-reviewed journal articles would yield more consistent and reliable results. Moreover, the search intentionally omitted journals focusing exclusively on post-primary or elementary education. Table 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria, along with the keywords used to select papers for this review.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.2. Identification of sources

In this review, we adopted the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards while conducting systematic research reviews. The PRISMA framework outlines the procedures for documenting research documents' identification in systematic reviews (see Fig. 1 ). Our investigation aimed to ascertain the complete compilation of Scopus-indexed journal articles.

PRISMA flow diagram on the identification and screening of sources.

The Scopus search resulted in 715 journal articles published from inception to date (August 2023). Subsequently, we employed Scopus filters to exclude 360 extraneous documents, encompassing editorials, comments, conference papers, reviews, books, and book reviews. Further, we carefully examined the remaining journal articles, paying close attention to their titles and, when necessary, their abstracts to determine their relevance to the current review. This thorough analysis led to a final database of 293 articles, as illustrated in Fig. 1 .

2.3. Data extraction and analysis

We stored the 293 eligible bibliographic records acquired from Scopus in a CSV file. This study utilized bibliometric analysis through Biblioshiny, an open-source bibliometric program available in RStudio [ 36 , 37 ]. Biblioshiny holds an advantage over other bibliometric tools as it provides a comprehensive array of statistical techniques and visualizations. This extensive toolset allows for an effective analysis of performance and facilitates the conceptual mapping of the study topic [ 38 ].

This section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis. The presentation of the results is organized around the four research questions.

3.1. Main information and growth trajectory of articles

Table 2 shows the main information regarding educational technology research at the primary school level. The findings show that publications began in 1989 (34 years ago) with an annual growth rate of 7.59, suggesting that an average of 7 papers are published each year, with 823 keywords used by authors to describe the discourse on the subject matter.

Main information.

Fig. 2 presents a line chart depicting the annual publication trajectory of articles on educational technologies in primary or elementary school education.

Yearly growth trajectory of articles.

The growth trajectory indicates that, of the 293 articles published over 34 years, the majority are concentrated within the last 15 years (2008–2023). Notably, 2013 saw the highest number of publications, followed closely by 2022 with 26 papers, and both 2020 and 2011 with 24 papers each. This distribution highlights an escalating interest among researchers in this pivotal research area, providing valuable insights for educators. However, 2017 marked a low point, with only four papers, appearing as an outlier in this distribution. Interestingly, before the noticeable increase in publications from 2008 onwards, the year 2003 previously held the record for the most publications, with four papers. It is also crucial to acknowledge a publication drought in the years 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2004, spanning 13 years. Therefore, the data suggests that the first 22 years (1989–2007) saw relatively fewer publications since records began, while the subsequent 15 years experienced a surge in research interest on the topic. This upsurge in publications can be interpreted as a reflection of the growing importance and integration of digital technologies in early education in more recent years. Furthermore, this trend may also signify a broader recognition within the academic and educational communities of the importance of empirically studying the implications, applications, and effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning during the early years of education.

3.2. Most impactful publication outlets

Table 3 showcases the 20 most impactful journal publication outlets. This was determined by the impact (h-index). As noted by Norris and Oppenheim [ 39 ], the h-index, which takes into account both the productivity and citation impact of publications, is a valuable metric for identifying key sources in a specific research domain. Hence, the importance of a source should not solely be assessed based on its productivity; the number of citations it garners also plays a crucial role in establishing its significance [ 40 ]. According to the findings, “Educational Technology” leads in the number of publications, followed by the “Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology” and “Computers in Education”. However, “Educational Technology and Society” tops the list as the most impactful outlet due to having the highest number of publications. Interestingly, “Computers and Education” secures the second spot in terms of impact, despite being the third most productive outlet, while the “Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology” is the third most impactful and second most productive. The discrepancy in the ranking positions based on productivity and impact (h-index) can be explained by the variations in the number of citations received by each journal.

Most impactful journal publication outlets.

3.3. Most impactful authors

Table 4 displays the top 20 authors based on their impact (h-index), which includes the total number of publications (TC), with Hwang G-J leading with nine papers, followed by Tsai C-C with six papers, and Hung C-M with five papers. In terms of impact, Hwang G-J stands out as the most impactful author, boasting an h-index of 9. This indicates that Hwang G-J has authored nine papers, each receiving at least nine citations (TC), contributing to a total of at least 81 citations. Following him are Hung C-M and Tsai C-C, each with an h-index of 5. This suggests that both authors have penned five papers that have garnered at least five citations each, resulting in a minimum of 25 citations per author. Additionally, Lee C-Y and Liu EZ-F each hold an h-index of 4, with each having authored four papers that have attracted at least four citations, totalling a minimum of 16 citations per author.

Most impactful Authors.

3.4. Country and institution analysis

The findings reveal that 299 institutions across 54 countries have contributed to the 293 publications included in this review. Fig. 3 visually presents the geographic distribution of the top 19 countries demonstrating significant productivity. China stands out as the top contributor with 68 articles, followed closely by Turkey with 24 articles. The USA holds the third position, contributing 22 papers to the field.

Most contributing countries.

When examining collaborations on publications, it is evident that there is a higher frequency of collaborations among authors within the same country (Single-Country Publications or SCP) compared to collaborations between authors from different countries (Multi-Country Publications or MCP). China leads in the count of single-country publications, with Turkey and the USA following suit. While China also dominates in multi-country publications, it is noteworthy that all Turkish contributions come from authors residing in Turkey, indicating no international collaborations. Singapore is the next prolific contributor in terms of MCPs, with three publications, followed by the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy, each with two MCPs.

Fig. 4 illustrates the countries with the most citations, with China leading significantly with 3056 citations. This number is approximately six times the citation counts of the USA and Singapore, which are the second and third most-cited countries, respectively. This disparity not only highlights China's active publication record but also indicates that the papers originating from China are highly valued and frequently referenced by scholars, underscoring China's influential role in shaping understanding in this research area.

Most cited countries.

Table 5 , from an institutional viewpoint, highlights the top 20 most productive institutions based on the number of articles produced. National Central University leads with 21 articles. Followed by National Taiwan Normal University with 19 articles, and National Taiwan University of Science and Technology with 16 articles. Notably, all these institutions are in China. Further examination of Table 5 reveals that the majority of the significant contributing institutions are based in China, which is consistent with the finding that China is the leading country contributing to research on educational technologies in primary or elementary education.

Most contributing institutions.

3.5. Most cited articles

Table 6 displays the top 20 documents that have garnered the most citations in this study. The document with the highest citation count is by Lee and Tsai [ 41 ], with a total of 338 citations. Their study aimed to develop a framework to comprehend teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-Web (TPCK-W) in the context of integrating Web technology into pedagogical practices. This high citation count suggests a substantial interest from scholars in understanding teachers’ pedagogical practices with the integration of TPCK-W.

Most cited articles (first 20 articles).

The second most-cited document is a study by Chai et al. [ 42 ]. The study has received a total of 250 citations. In the study, they examined the construct validity of a TPACK framework among Singaporean primary school pre-service teachers, focusing on the pedagogical approaches utilized during a 12-week ICT course. This study is essential for scholars looking to understand the implementation of TPACK in pre-service teacher education.

The third most cited paper, which has received 233 citations, was authored by Hasler et al. [ 43 ]. Their study explored the impact of learner-controlled pacing on instructional efficiency in educational animations. They investigated the use of audio-visual computer animations and narration-only presentations as teaching aids for primary school students. This paper is crucial for educators and researchers interested in the efficacy of different instructional methods and tools in primary education.

3.6. Spotlight on gender and disability

Out of the 293 articles analysed in this study, only four were identified as focusing explicitly on persons with disabilities, while two were dedicated to addressing gender issues. Table 7 lists the aforementioned papers that engage with disability and gender issues in detail. The studies echo that discernible gender differences exist in the interaction with educational technologies, necessitating tailored educational approaches to engage all students effectively. Educational technologies, particularly those incorporating visual and interactive elements and peer tutoring systems, have proven beneficial in supporting students with disabilities, with teachers playing a pivotal role in the successful implementation of these technology-based interventions.

Articles that discuss disability and gender issues.

3.7. Keywords and evolution trends

Fig. 5 presents a word tree that showcases the 20 most significant terms found in studies related to educational technology at the primary or elementary school levels. The size of each box in the word map is determined by the frequency of each specific keyword's use by authors. Identical keywords have been consolidated into a single column. From this visual representation, it is evident that “educational technology” is the predominant keyword, appearing with a frequency of 70 occurrences, or 29% of the time. This is followed by “elementary education” and “primary education”, with frequencies of 23 (9%) and 17 (7%) occurrences, respectively. Other notable terms include “improving classroom teaching” and “interactive learning environment”, each appearing 12 times (5%), and “teaching/learning strategies”, which is used nine times (4%). The prominence of these terms underscores the research focus on enhancing classroom teaching through interactive learning environments and effective teaching and learning strategies.

Keyword analysis – Word Tree.

Fig. 6 presents findings that reveal an annual trend in themes, showcasing a distinct pattern in the frequency of keyword usage. Between the years 2021 and 2022, the four most prominent topics of interest include “educational technology,” “augmented technology,” “teacher education,” and “pre-service teachers.” Meanwhile, from 2018 to 2020, the subjects of “educational technology,” “primary education,” “virtual reality,” “teacher training,” and “reading” were notably prevalent.

Keyword analysis –Trending Topics.

The term “educational technology” is especially significant as it was not only the most frequently occurring theme over the entire period but also dominated the discussions in the year 2020 specifically. An area of particular interest to stakeholders in the educational sector is how educational technology can be leveraged to support mathematics education. According to the findings, the term “mathematics” was most frequently discussed in 2016, while “reading” was a focal point of discussions in 2018.

In effect, the trending topics from 2021 to 2022 suggest a recent concentration on the tools and technologies used in education, the training and education of current and future teachers, and the application of emerging technologies in the educational environment.

3.8. Keywords Co-occurrence

The use of keyword co-occurrence analysis has proven effective as a technique for understanding knowledge structures and discerning patterns in research trends, as noted by Altınay Ozdemir and Goktas [ 67 ]. This approach provides valuable insights into both primary and secondary literature. Fig. 7 visually represents the co-occurrence analysis. In this context, each node represents a keyword. The size of a node signifies the number of documents, while a line connecting two nodes indicates a linkage between the respective groups. A thicker line connecting two nodes represents a stronger connection between them.

Co-occurrence of keywords.

This bibliometric analysis focuses on identifying and categorizing specific phrases. Notably, the term “educational technology” is represented by the red cluster. This cluster predominantly features discussions on education technology within the realm of “primary education”. The green cluster, which is the next most significant, primarily explores “elementary education”, and it maintains a strong connection with terms like “interactive learning environment” and “evaluation methodologies”. The remaining clusters are the purple and blue ones. The purple cluster highlights themes of “collaborative learning” and “ubiquitous learning”. In contrast, the blue cluster illuminates discussions on the “affordance” of educational technology at the “primary school” level. Each cluster reflects distinct but interrelated themes within the broader conversation on educational technology in early education.

3.9. Evolution of keywords

Various study topics have been identified to deepen understanding of the research outcomes. These existing themes can be strategically categorized and visualized through a graph to evaluate the significance and evolution of each research theme [ 68 ]. Fig. 8 presents a thematic map organized with density represented on the y-axis and centrality on the x-axis. A theme's value or significance is gauged by its centrality, while its expansion or development is assessed through its density level. The graph is sectioned into four quadrants.

Keyword thematic map for articles.

In the upper right quadrant, the “motor themes” are located, which include “educational technology”, “primary education”, “number sense”, “science education”, “educational technologies”, “digital storytelling”, “elementary education”, and “improving classroom teaching”. These themes are pivotal, having gained momentum in the literature on educational technology at the primary education level. They represent significant and developed areas of study within the field.

The upper left quadrant houses the “niche themes”, representing well-developed concepts within educational technology that are nonetheless specialized or niche in the broader research landscape. For this review, the niche themes identified are “gender”, “lifelong learning”, “computer game”, and “educational game”. In the lower left quadrant, “emerging or declining themes” are situated. These themes, including “creative thinking”, “web-based learning”, “mastery learning”, “evaluation”, and “gamification”, are either on the rise, potentially advancing the field, or are waning in relevance and application.

Finally, the lower right quadrant contains the “basic theme”, which serve as foundational principles in the field. Though these themes—“teachers”, “elementary school”, “collaborative learning”, and “game-based learning”—have low density, indicating limited development, they are crucial for guiding future research in the area. These themes require further exploration and study to enhance their importance and relevance in the context defined by fundamental and established themes in the field.

Fig. 9 provides a visual depiction of the evolution of themes over time (with the time slice set to three), divided into five main subject categories, each marked by specific time periods and clusters of keywords (represented by coloured blocks). This automatically generated periods of between 1986 2011, 2012–2014, 2015–2020, and 2021–2023. Between 1986 and 2011, research on educational technologies at the primary or elementary levels primarily focused on themes like “ubiquitous learning” and “technology integration”. During the subsequent period from 2012 to 2014, attention shifted towards “tpack” (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge) and “collaborative learning” in the context of primary or elementary education and educational technologies.

Sankey diagram based on keyword thematic evolution.

Then, in the period from 2015 to 2020, keywords such as “augmented reality”, “interactive learning environment”, and “reading” gained prominence in studies on educational technologies in primary or elementary education. This shift indicates a growing interest in examining the effects of augmented reality in educational technologies, as well as how these technologies can foster interactive learning environments and support reading development among children.

In the most recent time frame, from 2021 to 2023, the focus expands to a broader exploration of “technology” and strategies for “improving classroom teaching”. It's crucial to acknowledge the persistent interconnection among topics like “educational technology”, “primary education”, “elementary education”, and “educational technologies” throughout the entire span from 1986 to 2023, as illustrated in Fig. 9 .

4. Discussion and future research

This study aimed to consolidate research findings on educational technologies in elementary education, offering a platform for prospective inquiries. The discussion section synthesizes the salient findings and suggests future research directions.

• 1. Yearly Publications: The timeline from 2008 to 2016 and 2018 to 2023 witnessed a surge in publications, underscoring the sustained scholarly interest in educational technologies within elementary education over the last 15 years (See Fig. 2 ). This upsurge in publications can be interpreted as a reflection of the growing importance and integration of digital technologies in early education during more recent years [ 69 ]. Furthermore, this trend may also signify a broader recognition within the academic and educational communities of the importance of empirically studying the implications, applications, and effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning during the early years of education [ 70 ]. With recurrent themes cantered around “teachers”, “elementary school”, “collaborative learning”, and “game-based learning”, future research seems poised to expand upon these foundational areas, contributing to the burgeoning body of knowledge in the discipline.
• 2. Most Cited Documents: Lee and Tsai's (2010) work emerged as a pivotal reference, wielding considerable influence over subsequent scholarly endeavours (See Table 6 ). As Rodriguez [ 71 ] indicates, highly cited works often guide and shape the trajectory of academic exploration in the field, making the study by Lee and Tsai [ 41 ] a valuable resource for future investigations.
• 3. Future Research Themes: Cluster analysis reveals two prominent thematic clusters: one focused on “primary education” and the other on “elementary education”, with the latter closely associated with “interactive learning environments” and “evaluation methodologies” (See Fig. 7 ). Notably, emerging keywords like “collaborative learning”, “ubiquitous learning”, and the “affordances” of technology in “primary education” are gaining traction, providing fertile ground for future research endeavours. Compared with the aforementioned findings regarding trending topics from 2021 to 2023 (See Fig. 9 ), there is a recurring emphasis on the necessity to enhance classroom teaching, through strategies including the training and education of both current and prospective teachers, and the application of emerging technologies (e.g., augmented reality and gamification) in the educational environment.
• 4. Country Collaborations: Institutions in China are at the forefront of this academic terrain, garnering citations approximately five times more than their U.S. counterparts (See Fig. 4 ). However, international collaborations remain sparse, indicating an opportunity for scholars globally to forge partnerships with Chinese researchers to facilitate entry into this dynamic research domain (See Fig. 3 ).
• 5. Research from Developing Countries: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic elevated the importance of educational technologies worldwide. However, there is a conspicuous underrepresentation of research contributions from African nations. Future research should endeavour to document and analyse the unique experiences, challenges, and opportunities related to the deployment of educational technologies in African contexts, thereby enriching the global dialogue on inclusive and accessible digital education solutions.
• 6. Sample Groups: While teachers predominantly constitute the sample groups in existing studies, there's limited research engagement with students. Future studies should navigate the ethical considerations involved in incorporating minors to garner deeper insights directly from the student demographic.
• 7. Focus on Mathematics Education: Despite a generalized focus on creating conducive learning environments through technology, there's a discernible gap in literature addressing the technology's impact on specific subjects, particularly mathematics (See Fig. 6 ). Given the perceived difficulty of the subject, future research should scrutinize the role of technology in facilitating mathematics education at the elementary level.
• 8. Gender and Disability Dynamics: The review illuminates that gender-focused studies are scant (See Table 7 ). An understanding of gender differences and the needs of disabled students is vital for crafting inclusive educational strategies. Hence, future research should emphasize generating knowledge that enables the incorporation of technology in ways that are inclusively beneficial, with a concerted effort from researchers and technology developers to create tools adaptable to the diverse needs and preferences of various student or learner groups. Additionally, these studies could benefit from incorporating theories of learning heutagogy and cybergogy.

5. Conclusion

This bibliometric review has mapped the academic landscape of educational technology within the realm of primary and elementary education, spotlighting seminal works, emergent themes, geographical concentrations of scholarly output, and areas where future inquiries are much needed. The evidence underscores a sustained and burgeoning interest in how technology can be adeptly integrated into early learning environments, reflected in the spike of publications within the examined period.

The study identifies that in terms of growth, there is a significant uptick in publications during 2008–2016 and 2018–2023, highlighting the growing importance and incorporation of digital technologies in early education. The analysis identifies recurrent themes like teacher education, game-based learning, and collaborative learning, pointing towards future research directions. The three journals that made an impact in the research area are “Educational Technology and Society”, “Computers and Education” and “Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology” while “Hwang G-J”, “Hung C-M, and “Tsai C-C″ are the most impactful authors in the research area. The study also notes that while topics such as “educational technology, “elementary education” and “primary education”, have been dominant, there are underexplored areas, including technologies role in specific subjects, ethical student engagement, gender and disability dynamics, and contributions from African contexts.

Moreover, it is apparent that as digital technologies evolve and become ever more embedded in the educational fabric, the academic discourse is progressively gravitating towards understanding their myriad applications, implications, and effectiveness in the pivotal early years of schooling. The recurrent and emergent themes–- notably those revolving around teacher education, game-based and collaborative learning, interactive environments, and technology affordances–- delineate the current foci and foreseeable future trajectories of research within this dynamic field.

However, the analysis also unveils significant gaps and uncharted territories in the literature, presenting valuable opportunities for scholarly exploration. Among these are the need for a more nuanced understanding of technology's role in specific subject areas, notably mathematics; the imperative to engage more directly and ethically with student samples; and the call for greater attention to gender and disability within the context of educational technology. Additionally, there is an urgent requirement to redress the geographical imbalances in research contributions, particularly concerning the underrepresented experiences and challenges of deploying educational technologies in the African context.

Institutional collaborations, especially international partnerships, are sparse yet represent an untapped reservoir of potential for enriching the global dialogue and praxis of educational technology in elementary education. The prominent position of Chinese institutions in this field beckons international scholars to forge alliances, facilitating a truly global exchange of ideas, findings, and best practices.

In navigating towards these unexplored or underexplored horizons, future researchers will invariably contribute to a more robust, nuanced, and inclusive body of knowledge on educational technologies in elementary education. This endeavour is not merely academic but is fundamentally tethered to the practical and urgent task of equipping educators, policymakers, and technology developers with the insights and tools necessary to harness the power of technology in fostering inclusive, engaging, and effective learning environments for all children in their formative years.

5.1. Limitations of the study

The research contributes valuable insights that align with and support the existing body of literature in this field despite operating within certain confines and limitations. One of the critical constraints of the study was its reliance on the Scopus database, which, while reputable, does not offer an exhaustive collection of all pertinent publications on the subject. The deliberate exclusion of various forms of scholarly works, such as conference papers, dissertations, theses, and articles in the press, further narrows the scope of the review, potentially omitting valuable insights and findings present in these non-journal sources.

Furthermore, the research narrowly focuses on the practical applications of educational technology within the context of primary or elementary education. While this approach ensures relevance and specificity to the educational level under consideration, it inevitably leaves out potentially enlightening interdisciplinary contributions from fields such as engineering, computer sciences, and environmental sciences, among others.

Despite these limitations, the significance of the study's contribution cannot be understated. It provides a solid foundation for future investigations, offering a clearer direction for scholars and practitioners interested in the interplay between educational technology and elementary education. The research underscores the necessity for a broader, more inclusive review approach in subsequent studies. Future scholars in this domain would benefit from exploring various databases and considering a diverse array of scholarly works, employing a comprehensive set of keywords to capture the multifaceted nature of educational technology in primary education.

Further, we echo that there is a need to delve deeper into themes like collaborative and game-based learning within elementary settings to foster international collaborations, particularly with Chinese institutions, and to bolster contributions from underrepresented regions like Africa. Future research should also emphasize inclusivity, focusing on gender and disability dynamics, and address specific subjects like mathematics to gauge technology's subject-specific impact. Finally, the research implications, practical considerations and policy measures for the integration of advanced technologies, such as augmented reality and the metaverse, into innovative teaching and learning methods should be explored.

In conclusion, while circumscribed by its limitations, this study effectively serves as an initial exploration into the realm of educational technology within primary and elementary education settings. It illuminates the path for subsequent, more expansive research endeavours, thereby playing a crucial role in the ongoing scholarly conversation and the continual refinement and advancement of educational practices at the elementary level. Through cumulative efforts, the academic community can look forward to crafting a more inclusive, comprehensive, and nuanced understanding of how technology can be leveraged to enhance the educational experiences and outcomes for young learners around the globe.

Funding statement

This bibliometric review is one of the research works of The Open Learning Platform for Primary Education project funded by CERES and the Jacobs Foundation.

Data availability statement

Additional information.

Not applicable.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Sheena Lovia Boateng: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Project administration, Investigation, Resources, Software, Visualization. Obed Kwame Adzaku Penu: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision. Richard Boateng: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Joseph Budu: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. John Serbe Marfo: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Pasty Asamoah: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Methodology, Data curation.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Richard Boateng reports financial support was provided by Jacobs Foundation.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to CERES and the Jacobs Foundation for supporting the article's publication.

Journal of Educational Administration

• Submit your paper
• Author guidelines
• Editorial team
• Indexing & metrics
• Calls for papers & news

Before you start

For queries relating to the status of your paper pre decision, please contact the Editor or Journal Editorial Office. For queries post acceptance, please contact the Supplier Project Manager. These details can be found in the Editorial Team section.

Author responsibilities

Our goal is to provide you with a professional and courteous experience at each stage of the review and publication process. There are also some responsibilities that sit with you as the author. Our expectation is that you will:

• Respond swiftly to any queries during the publication process.
• Be accountable for all aspects of your work. This includes investigating and resolving any questions about accuracy or research integrity .
• Treat communications between you and the journal editor as confidential until an editorial decision has been made.
• Include anyone who has made a substantial and meaningful contribution to the submission (anyone else involved in the paper should be listed in the acknowledgements).
• Exclude anyone who hasn’t contributed to the paper, or who has chosen not to be associated with the research.
• In accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools , Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work. The author(s) must describe the content created or modified as well as appropriately cite the name and version of the AI tool used; any additional works drawn on by the AI tool should also be appropriately cited and referenced. Standard tools that are used to improve spelling and grammar are not included within the parameters of this guidance. The Editor and Publisher reserve the right to determine whether the use of an AI tool is permissible.
• If your article involves human participants, you must ensure you have considered whether or not you require ethical approval for your research, and include this information as part of your submission. Find out more about informed consent .

Generative AI usage key principles

• Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
• Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
• The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Research and publishing ethics

Our editors and employees work hard to ensure the content we publish is ethically sound. To help us achieve that goal, we closely follow the advice laid out in the guidelines and flowcharts on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website .

We have also developed our research and publishing ethics guidelines . If you haven’t already read these, we urge you to do so – they will help you avoid the most common publishing ethics issues.

A few key points:

• Any manuscript you submit to this journal should be original. That means it should not have been published before in its current, or similar, form. Exceptions to this rule are outlined in our pre-print and conference paper policies .  If any substantial element of your paper has been previously published, you need to declare this to the journal editor upon submission. Please note, the journal editor may use  Crossref Similarity Check  to check on the originality of submissions received. This service compares submissions against a database of 49 million works from 800 scholarly publishers.
• Your work should not have been submitted elsewhere and should not be under consideration by any other publication.
• If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it upon submission; this allows the editor to decide how they would like to proceed. Read about conflict of interest in our research and publishing ethics guidelines .
• By submitting your work to Emerald, you are guaranteeing that the work is not in infringement of any existing copyright.

Third party copyright permissions

Prior to article submission, you need to ensure you’ve applied for, and received, written permission to use any material in your manuscript that has been created by a third party. Please note, we are unable to publish any article that still has permissions pending. The rights we require are:

• Non-exclusive rights to reproduce the material in the article or book chapter.
• Print and electronic rights.
• Worldwide English-language rights.
• To use the material for the life of the work. That means there should be no time restrictions on its re-use e.g. a one-year licence.

We are a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) and participate in the STM permissions guidelines , a reciprocal free exchange of material with other STM publishers.  In some cases, this may mean that you don’t need permission to re-use content. If so, please highlight this at the submission stage.

Please take a few moments to read our guide to publishing permissions  to ensure you have met all the requirements, so that we can process your submission without delay.

Open access submissions and information

All our journals currently offer two open access (OA) publishing paths; gold open access and green open access.

If you would like to, or are required to, make the branded publisher PDF (also known as the version of record) freely available immediately upon publication, you can select the gold open access route once your paper is accepted. 

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge) . This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

Alternatively, if you would like to, or are required to, publish open access but your funding doesn’t cover the cost of the APC, you can choose the green open access, or self-archiving, route. As soon as your article is published, you can make the author accepted manuscript (the version accepted for publication) openly available, free from payment and embargo periods.

You can find out more about our open access routes, our APCs and waivers and read our FAQs on our open research page. 

Find out about open

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines

We are a signatory of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines , a framework that supports the reproducibility of research through the adoption of transparent research practices. That means we encourage you to:

• Cite and fully reference all data, program code, and other methods in your article.
• Include persistent identifiers, such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), in references for datasets and program codes. Persistent identifiers ensure future access to unique published digital objects, such as a piece of text or datasets. Persistent identifiers are assigned to datasets by digital archives, such as institutional repositories and partners in the Data Preservation Alliance for the Social Sciences (Data-PASS).
• Follow appropriate international and national procedures with respect to data protection, rights to privacy and other ethical considerations, whenever you cite data. For further guidance please refer to our  research and publishing ethics guidelines . For an example on how to cite datasets, please refer to the references section below.

Prepare your submission

Manuscript support services.

We are pleased to partner with Editage, a platform that connects you with relevant experts in language support, translation, editing, visuals, consulting, and more. After you’ve agreed a fee, they will work with you to enhance your manuscript and get it submission-ready.

This is an optional service for authors who feel they need a little extra support. It does not guarantee your work will be accepted for review or publication.

Visit Editage

Manuscript requirements

Before you submit your manuscript, it’s important you read and follow the guidelines below. You will also find some useful tips in our structure your journal submission how-to guide.

Submit your manuscript

There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.

Double check your manuscript

Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:

• Give the journal aims and scope a final read. Is your manuscript definitely a good fit? If it isn’t, the editor may decline it without peer review.
• Does your manuscript comply with our research and publishing ethics guidelines ?
• Have you cleared any necessary publishing permissions ?
• Have you followed all the formatting requirements laid out in these author guidelines?
• If you need to refer to your own work, use wording such as ‘previous research has demonstrated’ not ‘our previous research has demonstrated’.
• If you need to refer to your own, currently unpublished work, don’t include this work in the reference list.
• Any acknowledgments or author biographies should be uploaded as separate files.
• Carry out a final check to ensure that no author names appear anywhere in the manuscript. This includes in figures or captions.

You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .

The submission process

All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.

The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.

A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.

Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.

Don't forget to add your  ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.

Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .

Visit the ScholarOne support centre  for further help and guidance.

What you can expect next

You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Post submission

Review and decision process.

Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.

If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double anonymous peer review.  Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.

While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.

During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper.  Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Manuscript transfer service

Emerald’s manuscript transfer service takes the pain out of the submission process if your manuscript doesn’t fit your initial journal choice. Our team of expert Editors from participating journals work together to identify alternative journals that better align with your research, ensuring your work finds the ideal publication home it deserves. Our dedicated team is committed to supporting authors like you in finding the right home for your research.

If a journal is participating in the manuscript transfer program, the Editor has the option to recommend your paper for transfer. If a transfer decision is made by the Editor, you will receive an email with the details of the recommended journal and the option to accept or reject the transfer. It’s always down to you as the author to decide if you’d like to accept. If you do accept, your paper and any reviewer reports will automatically be transferred to the recommended journals. Authors will then confirm resubmissions in the new journal’s ScholarOne system.

Our Manuscript Transfer Service page has more information on the process.

If your submission is accepted

Open access.

Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge).  This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

For UK journal article authors - if you wish to submit your work accepted by Emerald to REF 2021, you must make a ‘closed deposit’ of your accepted manuscript to your respective institutional repository upon acceptance of your article. Articles accepted for publication after 1st April 2018 should be deposited as soon as possible, but no later than three months after the acceptance date. For further information and guidance, please refer to the REF 2021 website.

All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form.  This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.

Proofing and typesetting

Once we have received your completed licence form, the article will pass directly into the production process. We will carry out editorial checks, copyediting, and typesetting and then return proofs to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. This is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.

When the page proofs are finalised, the fully typeset and proofed version of record is published online. This is referred to as the EarlyCite version. While an EarlyCite article has yet to be assigned to a volume or issue, it does have a digital object identifier (DOI) and is fully citable. It will be compiled into an issue according to the journal’s issue schedule, with papers being added by chronological date of publication.

How to share your paper

Visit our author rights page  to find out how you can reuse and share your work.

To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about  how to promote your work .

Correcting inaccuracies in your published paper

Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our  article withdrawal and correction policies .

Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Frequently asked questions

Editors-in-Chief

• Professor Chen Schechter Bar Ilan University - Israel [email protected]
• Professor Jayson W. Richardson University of Denver - USA [email protected]

Founding Editor

• William Walker Australia

Senior Associate Editor

• David Gurr University of Melbourne - Australia
• Moosung Lee University of Canberra - Australia
• Karen Seashore Louis University of Minnesota - USA

Commissioning Editor

• Danielle Crow Emerald Publishing - UK [email protected]

Journal Editorial Office (For queries related to pre-acceptance)

• Sonal Aherkar Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Supplier Project Manager (For queries related to post-acceptance)

• Abinaya Jegadhesan Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Editorial Advisory Board

• Helene Arlestig Umea University - Sweden
• Marit Aas Oslo Metropolitan University - Norway
• Khalid Arar Texas State University - United States
• Noelle Arnold Ohio State University - USA
• Ibrahim Bajunid Inti Laureate University - Malaysia
• Bruce Barnett University of Texas at San Antonio - USA
• Pascale Benoliel Bar-Ilan University - Israel
• Susan C Bon George Mason University - USA
• Alex Bowers Teachers College, Columbia University - USA
• Stefan Brauckmann The Institute of Instructional and School Development - Austria
• Junjun Chen The Education University of Hong Kong - Hong Kong
• Pam Christie University of Cape Town - South Africa
• Simon Clarke The University of Western Australia - Australia
• Shelby Cosner University of Illinois Chicago - USA
• Christopher Day University of Nottingham - UK
• Geert Devos Ghent University - Belgium
• Karen Edge University College of London, UCL Institute of Education - UK
• Ori Eyal The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Israel
• William Frick University of Oklahoma - USA
• Qing Gu University College London (UCL) - UK
• Donald Hackmann University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - USA
• Seung-Hwan Ham Hanyang University - South Korea
• Alma Harris University of Swansea - UK
• Stephan Huber University of Teacher Education of Switzerland Zug. - Switzerland
• Seth Hunter George Mason University - USA
• Beverly Irby Texas A&M University - USA
• Sharon Kruse Washington State University - USA
• Gabriele Lakomski University of Melbourne - Australia
• Carmen Montecinos Catholic University of Valparaiso - Chile
• Joseph Murphy Vanderbilt University - USA
• Adam Nir The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Israel
• Izhar Oplatka Tel Aviv University - Israel
• Deniz Orucu University of Nottingham - UK
• Wendy Hui-Ling Pan Tamkang University - Taiwan (Republic of China)
• Chen Pei-Ying National Taiwan Normal University - Taiwan
• Haiyan Qian The Education University of Hong Kong - People's Republic of China
• Peter Sleegers BMC Consultancy - Netherlands
• Jacqueline A. Stefkovich Pennsylvania State University - USA
• Helen Stokes University of Melbourne - Australia
• Pierre Tulowitzki FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland - Switzerland
• Yingying Wang Georgia State University - USA
• Jose Weinstein Universidad Diego Portales - Chile

CiteScore 2023

Further information

CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.

Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.

For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition

CiteScore Tracker 2024

(updated monthly)

CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.

The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.

2023 Impact Factor

The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.

For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics

5-year Impact Factor (2023)

A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.

Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .

Time to first decision

Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024

Acceptance rate

The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .

This journal is abstracted and indexed by

• A+ Education
• Australian Education Index
• BFI (Denmark)
• Contents Pages in Education
• Current Abstracts
• Current Index to Journals in Education
• Education Administration Abstracts
• Education Research Abstracts
• Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
• Emerald Management Reviews
• Publishing in Academic Journals in Education
• School Organisation & Management Abstracts
• The Publication Forum (Finland) and
• Vocational Education & Training Abstracts

This journal is ranked by

• Social Science Citation Index SSCI (Clarivate Analytics)
• Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS)

Reviewer information

Peer review process.

This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.

The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.

Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.

The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.

All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.

Resources to guide you through the review process

Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.

More reviewer information

Calls for papers

At the margins no more: centering women in k-12 leadership.

Introduction Across the globe and via many different industries women remain underrepresented in leadership, and education is no different. For example, In Britain, 74% of teachers are women, but only 65% of headteachers a...

Research on the Superintendency

Introduction The aim of this special issue is to showcase new research on the superintendency (school district leadership) across diverse international contexts. We invite articles that delve into various aspects, includin...

Call for Papers – The Journal of Educational Administration

About the Journal Articles published in JEA demonstrate the editors' continuing commitment to theory, empirical research and critical analysis of the field's development. JEA's primary focus is on understanding issues of leadership and...

Thank you to the 2022 Reviewers of Journal of Educational Administration

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

Thank you to the 2021 Reviewers of Journal of Educational Administration

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has ...

Virtual Issue to celebrate 60 years of JEA

To celebrate 60 volumes of the Journal of Educational Administration please enjoy this virtual special issue highlighting the top 10 cited articles from the journal. Virtual issue...

Literati awards

Journal of Educational Administration - Literati Award Winners 2023

We are pleased to announce our 2023 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Principal’s perspectives on inclusive Ed...

Journal of Educational Administration - Literati Award Winners 2022 

We are pleased to announce our 2022 Literati Award winners.    Outstanding Paper Creating successful and uni...

Journal of Educational Administration - Literati Award Winners 2021

We are pleased to announce our 2021 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper The trickle-down effect of OCB...

The Journal of Educational Administration, founded in 1963, was the first international refereed journal in the field of educational leadership and management. From its inception, JEA has sought to publish research on educational administration conducted across diverse political, economic and socio-cultural contexts. Indeed, publications featured in JEA have both anticipated and traced the evolution of educational administration into a global field of research and practice. JEA is celebrating 60 years of publication.

Aims and scope

Articles published in the  Journal of Educational Administration (JEA) demonstrate the editors' continuing commitment to theory, empirical research and critical analysis of the field's development. JEA 's primary focus is on understanding issues of leadership and management in K-12 schools and school systems.

This broad focus includes studies exploring:

• How leadership is shaped by the cultural and national context of schools
• How leadership effects on teachers and teaching
• Features of the school organization (e.g., culture, climate, health)
• Educational quality and student outcomes
• Human resource processes
• Human resource management in education systems
• Change management
• Administrator and teacher selection and evaluation
• School leader preparation and development

Although the majority of papers published in JEA are based on studies that report empirical data, the journal does not give priority to quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods research.

Regardless of the empirical research paradigm, we expect a high standard of reporting the methods of the research. JEA also remains one of the primary international venues for reporting theoretical critiques and systematic reviews of research. This reflects our belief in the role that journals play in supporting the productive synthesis of knowledge. 

Latest articles

These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )

Challenges to the sustainability of Irish post-primary school leadership: the role of distributed leadership

A narrative review of the research on school leaders' emotional labor: a typology inspired by habermas's cognitive interests, transformational leadership and job satisfaction in vocational high schools in tã¼rkiye: a multilevel mediation model of teacher professional learning and self-efficacy, top downloaded articles.

These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )

Transformational leadership for deeper learning: shaping innovative school practices for enhanced learning

Transformational school leadership: a systematic review of research in a centralized education system, impact of school climate and resources on principal workload stress and job satisfaction: multinational evidence from talis 2018 data.

These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: May 2024 )

Reconceptualizing principal well-being: state, measurement and consequences

Do teacher beliefs mediate leadership and teacher behaviors testing teacher self-efficacy's mediation role between leadership for learning and teacher outcomes, related journals.

This journal is part of our Education collection. Explore our Education subject area to find out more.  

See all related journals

International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

International Journal of Information and Learning Technology (IJILT) provides a forum for the sharing of the latest...

Journal of International Education in Business

The Journal of International Education in Business is a peer-reviewed journal concerned with theoretical and pedagogic...

Qualitative Research Journal

Qualitative Research Journal is an international journal dedicated to communicating the theory and practice of...

This journal is aligned with our quality education for all goal

We believe in quality education for everyone, everywhere and by highlighting the issue and working with experts in the field, we can start to find ways we can all be part of the solution.

More From Forbes

The Biggest Education Trends Of The Next 10 Years

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Education is changing rapidly. In today’s fast-moving world, a model where we graduate in our youth prepared for a lifelong career is simply no longer valid.

Technology is reshaping the world into one where ongoing training, upskilling and reskilling are a necessity – and education is transforming to cater to this. Artificial intelligence (AI), online learning and breakthrough technologies like virtual and augmented reality (AR/VR) already play an increasingly important role. They will all become more integrated into the way we study and learn over the next decade.

So, here’s my look-ahead to what I believe will be the dominant trends in education and educational technology (EdTech) by 2035. It may seem a long way away, but understanding them now will likely help us prepare for a future that, thanks to technology, will look very different than today.

Immersive Virtual Learning Environments

By 2035, the distinction between the physical and digital worlds will be increasingly blurred, and this is as true in education as anywhere. While I am sure many children and teenagers will still be attending brick-and-mortar school, alternatives will be well established for those who can’t, as well as for adults and lifelong learners.

VR and AR technology will be far more accessible than it is today, with lightweight and affordable devices making it easy for anyone to interact with tutors and fellow learners as if they were in the same room. Highly immersive virtual classrooms and campuses will mean we can participate in sophisticated simulations, engage in complex scientific experiments or explore ancient civilizations first-hand.

WWE Raw Results, Winners And Grades As Rhea Ripley Returns

Nyt ‘strands’ hints, spangram and answers for tuesday, july 9th, the best brewery in the u.s.—according to the u.s. open beer championship.

The maturing of technologies that exist today will democratize access to education for those who aren’t fortunate enough to live in areas with good schools and colleges. However educators will face the challenge of balancing this with concerns such as increased social isolation and the impact of extended screen-time on developing minds.

AI-Driven Adaptive Learning

AI is going to change education (and everything else) in many ways, but over the next ten years, one of the most profound effects will be the rise of personalized learning. As the number of learners in both traditional classrooms (particularly in the developing world) and online environments climbs, teachers will have access to tools that accurately assess abilities and differentiate between learning styles to create hyper-personalized curriculums tailored to individuals’ requirements.

Today’s AI tutoring platforms will evolve into flexible AI mentors, able to understand psychological states and behavioral patterns to determine the best teaching strategies and even provide emotional support and encouragement. Students will have access to insights derived from biometric data to help them recognize the best time to learn and when they should rest. Adaptive gamification will challenge learners to improve themselves by dynamically engaging and assessing them throughout the education process, perhaps putting an end to the stress-inducing routine of cramming for end-of-term exams.

Personalization at this level has the potential to help us learn better and attain better educational outcomes. However, there will also be big challenges around privacy and questions over the role of human teachers as they find their role transitioning from information providers to learning facilitators. Biased data could lead to learners being inaccurately assessed, and care must be taken not to overlook the importance of human oversight and mentorship.

Neurotechnology And Accelerated Learning – Hacking The Human Brain For Better Learning

Here’s where things get very science fiction. So, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are in development today – the most famous example being Elon Musk’s Neuralink experiments . Don’t worry; we probably won’t all have to have chips implanted in our heads to benefit, though, as non-invasive forms of BCI have also been in development for some time.

The first use cases in education are likely to involve assisting students with disabilities, enabling them to control devices with thoughts. This will enhance their ability to communicate and take part in learning activities.

Within ten years, they could also be used to understand the brain’s learning processes better, potentially speeding up our ability to ingest, retain and recall information. By monitoring the electrical feedback generated by the brain, researchers believe it may be possible to optimize our ability to learn information and even develop skills such as playing a musical instrument.

Will this really be mainstream within ten years? Well, a lot depends on the outcome of research that’s going on today. And just as importantly, it will come down to how society is able to answer questions around the ethical and security implications of developing technology that can literally read our thoughts!

A Lifetime Of Learning

The concept of a “job for life” might have seemed normal to our parents’ generation, but it’s obsolete today. Students graduating ten years from now will be under no illusion that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge they will need for a lifelong career. The accelerating pace of digital transformation will make it necessary for those who want rewarding careers to adapt to new models of ongoing, continuous education. Education systems will adapt to support this, offering more courses that will involve on-the-job training and opportunities for upskilling.

It's already becoming normal for big companies like Amazon to offer degree-level apprenticeship programs, and this will become more common as employers seek to develop workforces equipped with the skills they need. Opportunities will involve online learning, modular learning and the type of immersive virtual learning discussed elsewhere in this article. Micro-learning and nano-learning will deliver education in bite-sized chunks, capable of being rolled out on a “just-in-time” basis to meet the changing needs of industries and professions. To cater to this, education providers will offer subscription services, allowing us to dip in and out of schooling in accordance with our personal needs. While there will always be a need for STEM education, with computers becoming increasingly proficient at technical tasks, more learning will be focused on human-centric “soft” skills that will increase our chances of remaining relevant in the era of AI and automation.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

The Nexus Between Higher Education Expansion and Economic Growth in Ethiopia: An Empirical Examination

• Paulos C. Tsegaw Virginia State University

Over the past three decades, Ethiopia’s higher education system has undergone substantial expansion, marked by an increase in the number of universities from two to more than 100 and a surge in student enrollment from 48 000 to more than 400 000. Despite this growth, there is a paucity of research on the relationship between higher education expansion and economic growth, with the few quantitative studies that have been undertaken yielding inconsistent outcomes. This research study embraced endogenous economic growth theory, employed the Autoregressive Distributive Lag (ARDL) bound testing model, and used World Bank data from 1991 to 2021 to explore the relationship between economic growth (measured by GDP per capita) and the expansion of higher education (proxied by gross tertiary enrollment). Contrary to prevailing assumptions, the study uncovered an insignificant association between higher education expansion and economic growth. Unlike other studies, it used qualitative analysis to unearth the potential contributing factors and identified subpar educational quality, limited university autonomy, and constrained academic freedom as critical issues. It is recommended that policymakers in countries undergoing similar higher education expansion should not only focus on increasing the number of students, but also prioritise improving the quality of education, granting greater autonomy to universities, and ensuring academic freedom. These factors are crucial for higher education to effectively contribute to economic growth.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Developed By

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Make a Submission

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Is college worth it? Poll finds only 36% of Americans have confidence in higher education

FILE - Students walk on the campus of Boston College, Monday, April 29, 2024, in Boston. Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the “wrong direction,” according to a new poll. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)

FILE - Students walk down Jayhawk Boulevard, the main street through the main University of Kansas campus, Friday, April 12, 2024, in Lawrence, Kan. Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the “wrong direction,” according to a new poll. (AP Photo/John Hanna, File)

FILE - Students cross the campus of Dartmouth College, March 5, 2024, in Hanover, N.H. Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the “wrong direction,” according to a new poll. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)

FILE - In this May 13, 2018, file photo, new graduates walk into the High Point Solutions Stadium before the start of the Rutgers University graduation ceremony in Piscataway Township, N.J. Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the “wrong direction,” according to a new poll. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

• Copy Link copied

Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the “wrong direction,” according to a new poll.

Overall, only 36% of adults say they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, according to the report released Monday by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation. That confidence level has declined steadily from 57% in 2015.

Some of the same opinions have been reflected in declining enrollment as colleges contend with the effects of the student debt crisis , concerns about the high cost of tuition and political debates over how they teach about race and other topics.

The dimming view of whether college is worth the time and money cuts across all demographics — including gender, age, political affiliation. Among Republicans, the number of respondents with high confidence in higher education has dropped 36 percentage points over the last decade — far more than it dropped for Democrats or independents.

“It’s so expensive, and I don’t think colleges are teaching people what they need to get a job,” says Randy Hill, 59, a registered Republican in Connecticut and a driver for a car service. His nephew plans to do a welding apprenticeship after graduating high school. “You graduate out of college, you’re up to eyeballs in debt, you can’t get a job, then you can’t pay it off. What’s the point?”

The June 2024 survey’s overall finding — that 36% of adults feel strong confidence in higher education — is unchanged from the year before. But what concerns researchers is shifting opinion on the bottom end, with fewer Americans saying they have “some” confidence and more reporting “very little” and “none.” This year’s findings show almost as many people have little or no confidence, 32%, as those with high confidence.

Experts say that fewer college graduates could worsen labor shortages in fields from health care to information technology. For those who forgo college, it often means lower lifetime earnings — 75% less compared with those who get bachelor’s degrees, according to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. And during an economic downturn, those without degrees are more likely to lose jobs.

“It is sad to see that confidence hasn’t grown at all,” says Courtney Brown, vice president at Lumina, an education nonprofit focused on increasing the numbers of students who seek education beyond high school. “What’s shocking to me is that the people who have low or no confidence is actually increasing.”

This year’s survey added new, detailed questions in an effort to understand why confidence is shrinking.

Almost one-third of respondents say college is “too expensive,” while 24% feel students are not being properly educated or taught what they need to succeed.

The survey did not specifically touch on the protests this year against the war in Gaza that divided many college campuses, but political views weighed heavily on the findings. Respondents voiced concerns about indoctrination, political bias and that colleges today are too liberal. Among the respondents who lack confidence, 41% cite political agendas as a reason.

Among other findings:

More than two-thirds, or 67%, of respondents say college is headed in the “wrong direction,” compared with just 31% who feel it’s going in the right direction.

Generally when people express confidence in higher education, they are thinking of four-year institutions, according to Gallup. But the survey found that more people have confidence in two-year institutions. Forty-nine percent of adults say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in two-year programs, compared with 33% of Americans who feel that way about four-year colleges.

California college student Kristen Freeman understands why.

“It’s about saving money. That’s why I went to a two-year. It’s more bang for your buck,” says Freeman, 22, a sociology major at Diablo Valley Community College with plans to transfer to San Jose State University for the final two years of college.

Freeman understands the concerns about indoctrination and whether college prepares students for life and work but also feels the only way to change structural problems is from the inside. “I am learning about the world around me and developing useful skills in critical thinking,” Freeman says. “I think higher education can give students the spark to want to change the system.”

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .