No abstract

The COVID‐19 lockdowns represent a major life event with an immense impact on university students' lives. Findings prior to the pandemic suggest that changes in personality and subjective well‐being (SWB) can occur after critical life events or psychological interventions. The present study examined how university students' extraversion, neuroticism, and SWB changed during two COVID‐19 lockdowns in Germany. To this end, we conducted a partly preregistered, two‐cohort study with four measurement points each from October 2019 to May 2021 (NStudy 1 = 81–148, NStudy 2 = 82–97). We used both multilevel contrast analyses and multi‐group random‐intercept cross‐lagged panel models to examine within‐person changes over time. Levels of life satisfaction, extraversion, and, unexpectedly, neuroticism were lower during both lockdowns. Students' affect improved during the first but deteriorated during the second lockdown, suggesting that similar experiences with the deceleration of daily life were associated with different affective outcomes during the two lockdown periods. Following the introduction or termination of a lockdown, changes in extraversion (neuroticism) were consistently positively (negatively) associated with changes in SWB. Our results stress the importance of disentangling between‐ and within‐person processes and using pre‐COVID baseline levels to examine changes in personality and SWB.

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness, and reproducibility of research, characterized by higher standards of scientific evidence, increased interest in open practices, and promotion of transparency. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Currently, the impact of integrating an open and reproducible approach into the curriculum on student outcomes is not well articulated in the literature. Therefore, in this paper, we provide the first comprehensivereview of how integrating open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning may impact students, using a large-scale, collaborative, team-science approach. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship may impact: (1) students’ scientific literacies (i.e., students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science, and the development of transferable skills); (2) student engagement (i.e., motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration, and engagement in open research), and (3) students’attitudes towards science (i.e., trust in science and confidence in research findings). Our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship in this area.

The COVID‐19 pandemic constitutes a prolonged global crisis, but its effects on mental health seem inconsistent. This inconsistency highlights the importance of considering the differential impact of the pandemic on individuals. There is some evidence that mental health trajectories are heterogeneous and that both sociodemographic and personal characteristics are associated with higher risk for mental health issues. By contrast, information on the role of social factors as potential determinants of initial reactions to the pandemic and on heterogeneous trajectories over time is lacking. We analysed seven assessments of a large‐scale ( N = 2203) longitudinal study across 1.5 years, beginning in March 2020. Using self‐report data on mental health and life satisfaction, we applied latent change models to examine initial reactions and mean changes across the pandemic. In addition, we applied latent class growth analyses to investigate whether there were distinct groups with different patterns of change. Results showed that on average, levels of life satisfaction and anxiety decreased ( d = −0.31 and d = −0.11, respectively), levels of depressive symptoms increased ( d = 0.13), and stress levels remained unchanged ( d = −0.01) during the first year of the pandemic. For each outcome, we identified four distinct mental health trajectories. Between 5% (for anxiety) and 11% (for life satisfaction) of the sample reported consistently high—and even increasing—impairments in mental health and well‐being. The trajectories of a sizeable number of people covaried with the course of the pandemic, such that people experienced better mental health when the number of COVID cases was low and when fewer restrictions were placed on public life. Low emotional support, high instrumental support, and the tendency to compare oneself with others were associated with more mental health issues. Findings show that whereas a substantial portion of people were largely unaffected by the pandemic, some individuals experienced consistently high levels of psychological distress. Social factors appear to play a crucial role in the maintenance of well‐being.

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.