Search for: All records

Despite increased efforts to assess the adoption rates of open science and robustness of reproducibility in sub-disciplines of education technology, there is a lack of understanding of why some research is not reproducible. Prior work has taken the first step toward assessing reproducibility of research, but has assumed certain constraints which hinder its discovery. Thus, the purpose of this study was to replicate previous work on papers within the proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining to accurately report on which papers are reproducible and why. Specifically, we examined 208 papers, attempted to reproduce them, documented reasons for reproducibility failures, and asked authors to provide additional information needed to reproduce their study. Our results showed that out of 12 papers that were potentially reproducible, only one successfully reproduced all analyses, and another two reproduced most of the analyses. The most common failure for reproducibility was failure to mention libraries needed, followed by non-seeded randomness. All openly accessible work can be found in an Open Science Foundation project1. 

There have been numerous efforts documenting the effects of open science in existing papers; however, these efforts typically only consider the author's analyses and supplemental materials from the papers. While understanding the current rate of open science adoption is important, it is also vital that we explore the factors that may encourage such adoption. One such factor may be publishing organizations setting open science requirements for submitted articles: encouraging researchers to adopt more rigorous reporting and research practices. For example, within the education technology discipline, theACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) has been promoting open science practices since 2018 through a Call For Papers statement. The purpose of this study was to replicate previous papers within the proceedings of L@S and compare the degree of open science adoption and robust reproducibility practices to other conferences in education technology without a statement on open science. Specifically, we examined 93 papers and documented the open science practices used. We then attempted to reproduce the results with invitation from authors to bolster the chance of success. Finally, we compared the overall adoption rates to those from other conferences in education technology. Although the overall responses to the survey were low, our cursory review suggests that researchers at L@S might be more familiar with open science practices compared to the researchers who published in the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) and the International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM): 13 of 28 AIED and EDM responses were unfamiliar with preregistrations and 7 unfamiliar with preprints, while only 2 of 7 L@S responses were unfamiliar with preregistrations and 0 with preprints. The overall adoption of open science practices at L@S was much lower with only 1% of papers providing open data, 5% providing open materials, and no papers had a preregistration. All openly accessible work can be found in an Open Science Framework project.