Really Work? Empirical Evidence from Taiwan Thursday, February 21, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
really work empirical evidence from taiwan
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Really Work? Empirical Evidence from Taiwan Thursday, February 21, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 21, 2024 181 likes •372 views

Does Research Ethics Education (REE) Really Work? Empirical Evidence from Taiwan Thursday, February 21, 2017 Karen, Yuan-Hsuan Lee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, National Tsing Hua University Chien Chou, Ph.D. Chair Professor, National Chiao Tung

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Does Research Ethics Education (REE) Really Work? Empirical Evidence from

Taiwan

Thursday, February 21, 2017

Karen, Yuan-Hsuan Lee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, National Tsing Hua University Chien Chou, Ph.D. Chair Professor, National Chiao Tung University

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Research Background

  • Research integrity is an essential part of research

(Godecharle et al. 2014; Horbach & Halffman, 2016; Steneck, 2006).

  • Scandals of research misconduct strengthen the

requirement of research ethics education for stakeholders

  • f research (Anderson et al., 2012).

2

Picture retrieved from REE available at https://ethics.nctu.edu.tw

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Research Objective & Question

Objective:

  • This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of

the Online Research Ethics Education program (REE) in Taiwan regarding students’ comprehension as well as their cognitive and behavioral attitude in research ethics. Research aims:

  • Assess students’ research ethics comprehension through

the development and validation of the Online REE item bank

  • Evaluate students cognitive and behavioral attitudes in

research ethics

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Special Features of the online REE program

  • Anchored instruction
  • Case studies
  • Interactivity
  • Formative assessment & Instant feedback

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Research ethics test Items reviewed by content and test development experts. Statistical procedures applied to examine item quality Item Bank

Basic concepts in research ethics Ethical considerations in the research procedure Protection of research subjects Publication and authorship

Tested on the calibration sample (N=566)

3-PL Item Response Models Classical Test Theory

Assessment and Linking: Balanced Incomplete Block Design (van der Linden, 2004)

Conflict of interest

Study1: Development and validation of the REE Item Bank

Study 1

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Study 1: Development and Validity of the REE Item Bank

Participants

  • 1325 graduate students recruited from universities

located in the northern, middle, southern, and eastern parts of Taiwan participated in the study.

  • Interviews with the learners:
  • 30 minutes of semi-structured interviews on 11 participants

form Group 1.

8

posttest

Online REE course (6hr)

posttest

Group 1: Online (N=730) Control (N=595)

Study 1

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Differences in Research Ethics Comprehension

9

Scales Online (n=730) Control (n=595) t p M SD M SD

Comprehension

(scaled score via linking)

71.84 17.88 48.18 15.61 25.3 <.001

Study 1

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Result: Interviews with the Learners

  • Awareness of the consequence of misconduct:
  • “I learned the Korean research ethics scandal from REE,

and felt pity that a man with high academic reputation would fail due to his research misconduct.” (S04)

  • Perceived confidence in avoiding plagiarism
  • “When you use the literature, you know how to be

careful to avoid plagiarism and how to rewrite it to conform to the regulations.” (S05)

  • Metacognition in learning from online REE program
  • “I like the videos, and also the tests. After finishing the

test, I can know what I still did not understand.” (S09)

10

Study 1

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Study 2：Assessment of cognitive and behavioral attitudes

Participants

  • 1268 graduate students recruited from universities

located in the northern, middle, southern, and eastern parts of Taiwan participated in the study.

11

Group 1: Online (N=566)

Online REE course(6hr) posttest

Online REE course + face2face Instruction

posttest

Group 2: Blended (N=501)

posttest

Control (N=201)

Study 2

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Instrument

  • The cognitive aspects measure students’ perception toward

moral judgments, e.g.,

  • I think every researcher has the duty and obligation to blow the

whistle if he/she knows of others’ research misconduct. (1: strong disagreement – 5: strong agreement)

  • The behavioral aspects measure students’ inclination to

fulfill a moral behavior, e.g.,

  • I will be the whistleblower if I know of others’ research

misconduct. (1: Not at all like me– 5: Very much like me)

12

Study 2

Study 2

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Diff Differe erences in C ces in Cogni

  • gnitiv

tive and and Be Behavio avioral ral Atti Attitud tude

13

Scales Blended (n=566) Online (n=501) Control (n=201) F p Post hoc M SD M SD M SD Cognitive

3.94 0.50 4.06 0.34 3.92 0.38 11.313 <.001

Online > Integrated, Control Behavioral 4.10

0.55 4.25 0.42 4.04 0.41 16.940 <.001 Study 1

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Summary

  • The online REE is valid and reliable in assessing

students performance.

  • Students who took the online REE courses exhibited

higher scores in their

1. REE comprehension 2. Cognitive attitude 3. Behavioral attitude

  • Qualitative interviews showed that the courses

enhanced students’

1. Awareness of the consequence of misconduct in research, 2. Perceived academic writing skill to avoid plagiarism, and 3. Metacognition in the course content.

14

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Conclusion

  • The REE program is effective in promoting students’

comprehension as well as their cognitive and behavioral attitudes toward research ethics.

  • Moreover, the nature of this online-based program

has the affordance to accommodate a massive number of learners.

15

slide-15
SLIDE 15

References

  • Anderson, E. E., Solomon, S., Heitman, E., DuBois, J. M., Fisher, C. B., Kost, R. G.,

… Ross, L. F. (2012). Research ethics education for community-engaged research: A review and research agenda. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 7(2), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.2.3

  • Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European

research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,9(3), 79–90. doi:10.1177/1556264614540594.

  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2016). Promoting virtue or punishing fraud:

Mapping contrasts in the language of “scientific integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current

Knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.

  • van der Linden, W. J. (2004). Optimizing balanced incomplete block designs for

educational assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(5), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621604264870

16

slide-16
SLIDE 16

17

Thank you for listening!

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Students’ satisfaction toward the online REE program

18

  • 結果顯示：

Note：1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Average, 4. Agree, 5. Strongly agree

Scales Learning Satisfaction Online (N=1539) Blended (N=237) t p M SD M SD Difficulty of the learning material

4.07 0.736 4.08 0.740

  • 0.194

0.423

Usability of the instructional content

4.03 0.786 4.04 0.744

  • 0.191

0.424

Interface design

3.74 0.830 3.75 0.804

  • 0.177

0.430

Interactivity

3.72 0.767 3.76 0.729

  • 0.781

0.217

Aids in comprehension

3.71 0.782 3.76 0.767

  • 0.932

0.176