31 research outputs found
Determinants and consequences of offloading working memory processes
In my PhD-project I investigated the externalization of working memory processes into technical tools (i.e. cognitive offloading). Thereby, two main research questions arose â first, how do individuals decide to offload working memory processes and second, what consequences does this offloading behavior have on immediate and subsequent task performance. Regarding the former, I performed two studies investigating metacognitions as determinants of cognitive offloading. To measure offloading behavior, I used and adapted the Pattern Copy Task â a free choice offloading paradigm. While I did not find a relationship between metacognitive beliefs and offloading behavior in Study 1 (N = 80), I used fake performance feedback (below-average vs. above-average vs. no feedback) to experimentally manipulate metacognitive beliefs in Study 2 (N = 159). The participants adopted their metacognitive beliefs according to the feedback, but there were no group effects on offloading behavior. I argue that rather actual working memory performance and related metacognitive experiences act as a predictor for cognitive offloading than metacognitive beliefs. Regarding the consequences of offloading behavior, in Study 3 I observed a trade-off between enhanced immediate task processing but decreased subsequent memory performance due to cognitive offloading within three experiments (each N = 172). Nonetheless, cognitive offloading was not harmful for long-term memory formation under all circumstances. If participants were forced to offload maximally but also had the intention to foster a strong long-term memory detrimental effects of offloading could be counteracted. In a last study (Study 4, N = 133) I tested whether cognitive offloading in one task is beneficial for the performance of a simultaneous secondary task. When participants offloaded more within the Pattern Copy Task due to low temporal costs associated with offloading, they showed a better secondary task performance than when they offloaded less due to high temporal costs. Cognitive offloading might therefore foster secondary task performance; however, this influence is not fully explained yet. My studies provide a systematic investigation of the omnipresent phenomena âcognitive offloadingâ and serve for a better understanding of humansâ technical tool use
Recommended from our members
A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science
Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx)
A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science
Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://osf.io/hstcx).<br/
The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes
The emergence of large-scale replication projects yielding successful rates substantially lower than expected caused the behavioural, cognitive, and social sciences to experience a so-called âreplication crisisâ. In this Perspective, we reframe this âcrisisâ through the lens of a credibility revolution, focusing on positive structural, procedural and community-driven changes. Second, we outline a path to expand ongoing advances and improvements. The credibility revolution has been an impetus to several substantive changes which will have a positive, long-term impact on our research environment
Recommended from our members
The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes
In response to large-scale replication projects yielding successful replication rates substantially lower than expected, the behavioural, cognitive and social sciences have found themselves amidst a âreplication crisisâ. In this narrative review, we reframe this âcrisisâ through the lens of a credibility revolution, focusing on positive structural, procedural and community-driven changes. Second, we outline a path to expand ongoing advances and improvements. The credibility revolution has been an impetus to several substantive changes which will have a positive, long-term impact upon our research environment
Recommended from our members
A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science
Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://osf.io/hstcx)
Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes
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. studentsâ 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
Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: A critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes
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. studentsâ 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
Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes
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. studentsâ 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