What Do Undergraduate Students Learn From Participating in Psychological Research?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers often rely on undergraduate students to participate in psychological studies and so ethical guidelines state that there must be educational value to their participation. In previous studies that have asked undergraduates whether they felt they learned something new from participating in research, students have generally said yes. However, we know relatively little about what specifically they are learning. The current study aimed to extend previous research by asking undergraduate participants ( N = 479), who had all taken part in at least one psychology study, to indicate whether and what they learned about the research process, themselves, or other people as a result of their participation. Participants were also asked to recommend ways to make participating in studies more educational. Our findings suggest that the majority of participants are learning from their participation, most often about the design or process of research but also sometimes about their own psychology or that of other people. Based on students’ feedback, we provide specific recommendations for further improving the educational potential of studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it