The Selves of Educational Psychology: Conceptions, Contexts, and Critical Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article begins with an interpretation and description of conceptions of selfhood that are assumed in educational psychologists' programs of theory, research, and practice in the area of student self-development. Three underlying conceptions of the self are considered: (a) the expressive self (found mostly in research and theory on self-esteem and self-concept), (b) the managerial self (found mostly in research and theory on self-regulation and self-efficacy), and (c) the communal self (found to some extent in sociocultural research and theory in educational psychology, but not typically emphasized or evident in studies of self-esteem, self-concept, self-regulation, and self-efficacy). This overview is followed by an interpretation of the sociocultural context (in Western societies and schools) within which these conceptions of selfhood have flourished. Three dimensions are especially helpful in interpreting the sociocultural and school contexts within which self-related studies in educational psychology are positioned: (a) a psychological dimension of self-control versus self-fulfillment, (b) a social political dimension of individual freedom versus civic responsibility, and (c) an educational dimension of personal development versus institutional socialization. A critical assessment of the current state of self-related studies in educational psychology is then undertaken that focuses on the relative absence of, and need for, more communal conceptions of selfhood in these areas of inquiry. Finally, possibilities for the development of viable conceptions of communal selfhood and agency are considered briefly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".