No abstract

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

The Serial Reaction Time task, one of the most widely used tasks to index procedural memory, has been increasingly employed in individual differences research examining the role of procedural memory in language and other cognitive abilities. Yet, despite consistently producing robust procedural learning effects at the group level (i.e. faster responses to sequenced/probable trials versus random/improbable trials), these effects have recently been found to have poor reliability. In this meta-analysis ( N = 7), comprising 719 participants ( M = 20.81, s.d. = 7.13), we confirm this ‘reliability paradox’. The overall retest reliability of the robust procedural learning effect elicited by the SRTT was found to be well below acceptable psychometric standards ( r < 0.40). However, split-half reliability within a session is better, with an overall estimate of 0.66. There were no significant effects of sampling (participants' age), methodology (e.g. number of trials, sequence type) and analytical decisions (whether all trials were included when computing the procedural learning scores; using different indexes of procedural learning). Thus, despite producing robust effects at the group-level, until we have a better understanding of the factors that improve the reliability of this task using the SRTT for individual differences research should be done with caution.

The ability to extract patterns from sensory input across time and space is thought to underlie the development and acquisition of language and literacy skills, particularly the subdomains marked by the learning of probabilistic knowledge. Thus, impairments in procedural learning are hypothesized to underlie neurodevelopmental disorders, such as dyslexia and developmental language disorder. In the present meta‐analysis, comprising 2396 participants from 39 independent studies, the continuous relationship between language, literacy, and procedural learning on the Serial Reaction Time task (SRTT) was assessed across children and adults with typical development (TD), dyslexia, and Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Despite a significant, but very small, relationship between procedural learning and overall language and literacy measures, this pattern was not observed at the group‐level when examining TD, dyslexic, and DLD groups separately. Based on the procedural/declarative model, a positive relationship was expected between procedural learning and language and literacy measures for the typically developing group; however, no such relationship was observed. This was also the case for the disordered groups (ps > .05). Also counter to expectations, the magnitude of the relationship between procedural learning and grammar and phonology did not differ between TD and DLD (ps > .05), nor between the TD and dyslexic group on reading, spelling, and phonology (ps > .05). While lending little support to the procedural/declarative model, we consider that these results may be the consequence of poor psychometric properties of the SRTT as a measure of procedural learning.