评估本科生毕业论文预注册学习的教学效果

IF 15.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1177/25152459231202724
Madeleine Pownall, Charlotte R. Pennington, Emma Norris, Marie Juanchich, David Smailes, Sophie Russell, Debbie Gooch, T. Evans, Sofia Persson, Matthew H. C. Mak, L. Tzavella, R. Monk, Thomas Gough, Christopher S. Y. Benwell, M. Elsherif, Emily Farran, Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell, Luke T. Kendrick, Julia Bahnmueller, E. Nordmann, Mirela Zaneva, K. Gilligan-Lee, Marina Bazhydai, Andrew Jones, Jemma Sedgmond, Iris Holzleitner, James Reynolds, Jo Moss, Daniel Farrelly, A. J. Parker, Kait Clark
{"title":"评估本科生毕业论文预注册学习的教学效果","authors":"Madeleine Pownall, Charlotte R. Pennington, Emma Norris, Marie Juanchich, David Smailes, Sophie Russell, Debbie Gooch, T. Evans, Sofia Persson, Matthew H. C. Mak, L. Tzavella, R. Monk, Thomas Gough, Christopher S. Y. Benwell, M. Elsherif, Emily Farran, Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell, Luke T. Kendrick, Julia Bahnmueller, E. Nordmann, Mirela Zaneva, K. Gilligan-Lee, Marina Bazhydai, Andrew Jones, Jemma Sedgmond, Iris Holzleitner, James Reynolds, Jo Moss, Daniel Farrelly, A. J. Parker, Kait Clark","doi":"10.1177/25152459231202724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is “study preregistration,” through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method, and analysis plans before data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 52; experimental group) and students who did not (n = 37; control group). Attitudes toward statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both before and after dissertation completion. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw (date of in-principle acceptance: September 21, 2021). Study preregistration did not significantly affect attitudes toward statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2 compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organization of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigor. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to discussions surrounding embedding Open Science principles into research training.","PeriodicalId":55645,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","volume":"176 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Study Preregistration in the Undergraduate Dissertation\",\"authors\":\"Madeleine Pownall, Charlotte R. Pennington, Emma Norris, Marie Juanchich, David Smailes, Sophie Russell, Debbie Gooch, T. Evans, Sofia Persson, Matthew H. C. Mak, L. Tzavella, R. Monk, Thomas Gough, Christopher S. Y. Benwell, M. Elsherif, Emily Farran, Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell, Luke T. Kendrick, Julia Bahnmueller, E. Nordmann, Mirela Zaneva, K. Gilligan-Lee, Marina Bazhydai, Andrew Jones, Jemma Sedgmond, Iris Holzleitner, James Reynolds, Jo Moss, Daniel Farrelly, A. J. Parker, Kait Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/25152459231202724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is “study preregistration,” through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method, and analysis plans before data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 52; experimental group) and students who did not (n = 37; control group). Attitudes toward statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both before and after dissertation completion. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw (date of in-principle acceptance: September 21, 2021). Study preregistration did not significantly affect attitudes toward statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2 compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organization of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigor. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to discussions surrounding embedding Open Science principles into research training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science\",\"volume\":\"176 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231202724\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231202724","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,本科生毕业论文项目中存在可疑研究实践(QRPs)。为减少 QRPs 而提出的一种入门级开放科学实践是 "研究预注册",即研究人员在数据收集和/或分析之前概述其研究问题、设计、方法和分析计划。在本研究中,我们旨在通过准实验设计,实证检验预注册作为本科生毕业论文教学工具的有效性。我们共招募了 89 名英国心理学专业学生,其中包括预注册实证定量论文的学生(n = 52;实验组)和未注册的学生(n = 37;对照组)。在毕业论文完成前后,对学生的统计态度、QRP 的接受程度以及对开放科学的理解进行了测量。探索性测量包括参与预注册的能力、机会和动机,仅在时间 1 进行测量。本研究作为注册报告进行;第一阶段协议:https://osf.io/9hjbw(原则上接受日期:2021 年 9 月 21 日)。研究的预注册并没有明显影响对统计学的态度或对 QRP 的接受程度。然而,与未进行预注册的学生相比,预注册的学生在时间 1 到时间 2 期间对开放科学概念的理解程度更高。探索性分析表明,预注册的学生在能力、机会和动机方面都明显优于预注册的学生。定性回答显示,预注册被认为可以提高论文的清晰度和条理性,防止质量问题,并促进论文的严谨性。不利因素和障碍包括时间、僵化感和培训需求。这些结果有助于围绕将开放科学原则纳入研究培训展开讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Study Preregistration in the Undergraduate Dissertation
Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is “study preregistration,” through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method, and analysis plans before data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 52; experimental group) and students who did not (n = 37; control group). Attitudes toward statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both before and after dissertation completion. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw (date of in-principle acceptance: September 21, 2021). Study preregistration did not significantly affect attitudes toward statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2 compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organization of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigor. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to discussions surrounding embedding Open Science principles into research training.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
0.70%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: In 2021, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science will undergo a transition to become an open access journal. This journal focuses on publishing innovative developments in research methods, practices, and conduct within the field of psychological science. It embraces a wide range of areas and topics and encourages the integration of methodological and analytical questions. The aim of AMPPS is to bring the latest methodological advances to researchers from various disciplines, even those who are not methodological experts. Therefore, the journal seeks submissions that are accessible to readers with different research interests and that represent the diverse research trends within the field of psychological science. The types of content that AMPPS welcomes include articles that communicate advancements in methods, practices, and metascience, as well as empirical scientific best practices. Additionally, tutorials, commentaries, and simulation studies on new techniques and research tools are encouraged. The journal also aims to publish papers that bring advances from specialized subfields to a broader audience. Lastly, AMPPS accepts Registered Replication Reports, which focus on replicating important findings from previously published studies. Overall, the transition of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science to an open access journal aims to increase accessibility and promote the dissemination of new developments in research methods and practices within the field of psychological science.
期刊最新文献
Bayesian Analysis of Cross-Sectional Networks: A Tutorial in R and JASP Conducting Research With People in Lower-Socioeconomic-Status Contexts Keeping Meta-Analyses Alive and Well: A Tutorial on Implementing and Using Community-Augmented Meta-Analyses in PsychOpen CAMA A Practical Guide to Conversation Research: How to Study What People Say to Each Other Impossible Hypotheses and Effect-Size Limits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1