Plain language summaries (PLSs) aim for effective, evidence-based science communication by reporting scientific results in a generally understandable language. Here, we investigated whether students can produce PLSs of high quality, using guidelines of the project KLARpsy, which hosts German-language text PLSs of psychological meta-analyses freely accessible in the web. After a pre-screening of eligible meta-analyses and a pilot rating (e.g., of interest and social relevance), B.Sc. students in psychology ( n = 18) each wrote a PLS about a self-suggested meta-analysis as part of their B.Sc. thesis. In the explorative evaluation study, we tested competing predictions on how author expertise might affect text quality. Independent participants ( n = 232; mostly non-psychologists) rated one randomly drawn student-written PLS and one expert-written PLS (from the existing KLARpsy collection). The perceived understanding and empowerment were both rated lower for the student texts; this is theoretically in line with an expert-superiority effect. Yet, small effect sizes and the high overall text quality suggest that, even before completing their academic degree, with clear guidelines and minimal additional support from lecturers, students’ writing PLSs not only trains the communicative skills of future scientists and practitioners but can also provide direct outcomes of social and practical relevance.
In contemporary work environments, psychology graduates are expected to demonstrate 21st-century skills, including collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. Recognizing these demands, this study aimed to investigate to what extent and how psychology master's programs in the Netherlands integrate 21st-century skills into curricula. First, we conducted a document analysis of the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of all psychology master's programs ( N = 28) at Dutch research universities. Qualitative content analysis of the ILOs revealed that the 21st-century skills critical thinking, communication, initiative and self-management, and productivity were addressed in all programs’ ILOs. Next, to extend the document analysis, we conducted a case study of an organizational psychology master's program to examine how skills-related ILOs were realized in curriculum components. Results showed that the curriculum provided extensive opportunities to develop 21st-century skills through active learning practices such as group discussions, case assignments, role-plays, and simulations. We also found notable discrepancies between the ILOs and the skills emphasized in learning goals, instructional materials, and assessments, indicating that a broader scope of skills was being taught than was formally articulated. The findings contribute to the literature and educational practices by providing insights into the integration of 21st-century skills in master's programs and informing future curriculum developments.
Open Science practices are rapidly becoming more common, resulting in the need for students to learn these practices as part of their academic training. Despite the growing relevance, realistic implementations in study programs that effectively mimic openness remain scarce. To address this gap, we developed LIFOS—Local Infrastructure for Open Science, a GitLab-based platform specifically built for student training in Open Science practices. Accompanied by open educational material, LIFOS emulates the Open Science Framework, enabling students to preregister their studies, share data, analysis scripts, and final reports, akin to established open repository platforms. This setup allows archiving student work sustainably and operates distinctly from the research activities of academic staff. Importantly, LIFOS is only accessible within the university, fostering a safe learning environment. Here, we will present the concept and integration of LIFOS, allowing others to adopt the platform in their teaching, and further share insights into its impact and usability based on data we collected from students in psychology bachelor courses who worked with LIFOS.
The commentaries on Robinson et al. thoughtfully extend the target article's central purpose: beginning a disciplinary conversation about how undergraduate psychology can prepare students for an artificial intelligence (AI)-shaped world while preserving the human, scientific, ethical, and transferable skills that define psychological education. We clarify that our intent was not to diminish learning, reduce psychology to technical AI use, or suggest that AI should displace the established strengths of the major. Instead, we view AI proficiency as an emerging form of professional and civic preparation that educators should integrate through skills psychology already develops, including critical thinking, scientific reasoning, ethical judgment, communication, self-regulation, cultural responsiveness, and understanding human behavior. We began with established American Psychological Association resources because they offered a practical, familiar foundation for curricular integration. We did not propose an exhaustive model or fixed doctrine. Rather, we offered a framework intended to inspire further development, international adaptation, empirical testing, and practical implementation. Responsible integration will require faculty development, institutional support, transparent learning practices, culturally responsive and international perspectives, and continued scholarship on learning, transfer, assessment, and workforce preparation. We conclude by encouraging collaborative work, including a national or international summit, to advance learning-centered, human-centered, and ethically responsible AI education.
