aerj-theory-and-framework
GitHub用于构建美国教育研究期刊(AERJ)论文的概念或理论框架。指导用户明确理论渊源、操作化构念及贡献，确保框架贯穿设计与分析，避免装饰性引用，提升研究的理论深度与解释力。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aerj-theory-and-framework -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "aerj-theory-and-framework",
"description": "Use when building the conceptual or theoretical framework for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects a clear framework that frames the question, guides the design and analysis, and elevates a result into a contribution to understanding. Strengthens the framework; it does not invent theory."
}
Theory & Conceptual Framework (aerj-theory-and-framework)
AERJ rewards work that is theoretically grounded — a framework that frames the question, justifies the design, and gives the findings meaning for the field. A strong result without a frame reads as a report, not a contribution. The frame can be a formal theory, a conceptual model, or an interpretive lens, depending on your methodological tradition and dominant education-research lens.
When to trigger
- Articulating the conceptual / theoretical framework section
- A reviewer said the paper is "under-theorized" or "atheoretical"
- Connecting constructs to measures (quant) or to coding/interpretation (qual)
- Stating the propositions, hypotheses, or guiding questions the study tests or explores
How to build the framework
- Name the frame and its provenance. Whose theory or which conceptual tradition (learning theory, organizational theory, sociocultural, critical/equity frameworks, development, etc.)? Cite its strongest statement, not a textbook gloss.
- Make it do work. The framework should generate the questions/propositions, motivate the design choices, and shape what counts as evidence — not sit decoratively in section 2.
- Define constructs operationally. For quantitative work, tie each construct to a measure/indicator
(hand off to
aerj-data-analysis). For qualitative work, tie constructs to what you will look for and how you will interpret it. - State the contribution to understanding. Are you extending, testing, complicating, or integrating a framework? Be explicit; AERJ values conceptual advance.
- Attend to equity and context. Where relevant, the frame should make explicit assumptions about who, where, and under what conditions the claim holds.
The framework-does-work test
For each major design or analysis choice, write: "We do this because the framework implies ___." If a choice has no such line, either the choice or the framework is underspecified.
Anti-patterns
- A "theory" section that never reappears in design, analysis, or discussion
- Borrowing a framework as decoration while the analysis runs on intuition
- Hypotheses with no derivation from the frame; or qual coding with no conceptual anchor
- Over-claiming a grand theory from a single bounded study
- Ignoring context/equity assumptions the framework actually carries
Framework expectations by tradition (AERJ referees)
AERJ rewards conceptual advance, but what a "framework doing work" looks like differs by method and dominant education-research lens. Calibrate yours against the row that fits your study.
| Tradition / lens | Frame should generate | Under-theorized tell a referee flags |
|---|---|---|
| Quantitative, teaching/learning lens | Hypotheses and construct-to-measure links | Hypotheses with no derivation from the frame |
| Quantitative, policy/institutional lens | Mechanisms the policy/organizational design tests | A frame cited once, then never revisited |
| Qualitative | Sensitizing concepts guiding what to look for | "Lens" named but coding runs on intuition |
| Mixed | Why integration is theoretically motivated | Two strands with two unrelated frames |
Worked framework vignette (illustrative)
An integrated-AERJ study of a school-funding equalization reform invokes an organizational-resource framework. To make it do work, the authors derive that equalization should compress between-school variance in instructional spending more than within-school variance — a testable implication. Their multilevel design then reports an illustrative drop in between-school spending variance from 0.30 to 0.18 after the reform. Because the framework generated that specific prediction, the result reads as a conceptual advance about how institutions absorb funding shocks, not a descriptive spending tally. Each design choice carries a "we do this because the framework implies ___" line.
Referee pushback and the venue fix
- "The paper is atheoretical / under-theorized." → Show the frame generating the questions and shaping what counts as evidence, not sitting decoratively in section 2.
- "You over-claim a grand theory." → Scope the contribution to extend/test/complicate, and state the conditions under which the claim holds.
- "Constructs aren't operationalized." → Tie each construct to a measure (quant) or to an observable (qual); confirm framing expectations against the journal's current submission guidelines.
Output format
【Framework】name + provenance (key citation)
【Constructs】defined + linked to measures (quant) or to interpretation (qual)
【Propositions/Questions】derived from the frame
【Contribution】extend / test / complicate / integrate
【Does-work check】each design choice tied to the frame? [Y/N]
【Next】aerj-research-design
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— measurement/SEM and qualitative coding tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md— AERJ scope and reporting-standards expectations
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:19
