A tale of two formats: Graduate students' perceptions and preferences of interactivity in Responsible conduct of research education.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2347394

Chien Chou, Huei-Chuan Wei

{"title":"A tale of two formats: Graduate students' perceptions and preferences of interactivity in Responsible conduct of research education.","authors":"Chien Chou, Huei-Chuan Wei","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2347394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The significance of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education in higher education is well-acknowledged. However, the lack of interactivity in online RCR courses remains a concern for course designers and instructors. This research aims to identify types of interactivity embedded in RCR courses and examine graduate students' perceived interactivity in different course formats (online versus face-to-face) by two distinct samples.Methods/materials: Study one, involving 191 participants, identified the model construct of the Learner Perceptions of Interactivity Scale for RCR. The result indicated a 15-item scale characterized by three factors: self-control, human-interaction, and information-access. Study two, involving a sample of 390 individuals who received both formats of RCR instruction, confirmed the instrument's reliability and explored students' perceptions of interactivity types within the two formats.Results: Notably, students in Study 2 perceived a higher degree of human interaction in the face-to-face format while attributing more significance to self-control and information access in the online course. Approximately 80% of the students expressed a preference for a fully online course if given another opportunity to choose or recommend a format. This preference was attributed to their inclination toward more control and access, underscoring the significance of these elements in shaping their learning experiences.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2347394","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The significance of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education in higher education is well-acknowledged. However, the lack of interactivity in online RCR courses remains a concern for course designers and instructors. This research aims to identify types of interactivity embedded in RCR courses and examine graduate students' perceived interactivity in different course formats (online versus face-to-face) by two distinct samples.

Methods/materials: Study one, involving 191 participants, identified the model construct of the Learner Perceptions of Interactivity Scale for RCR. The result indicated a 15-item scale characterized by three factors: self-control, human-interaction, and information-access. Study two, involving a sample of 390 individuals who received both formats of RCR instruction, confirmed the instrument's reliability and explored students' perceptions of interactivity types within the two formats.

Results: Notably, students in Study 2 perceived a higher degree of human interaction in the face-to-face format while attributing more significance to self-control and information access in the online course. Approximately 80% of the students expressed a preference for a fully online course if given another opportunity to choose or recommend a format. This preference was attributed to their inclination toward more control and access, underscoring the significance of these elements in shaping their learning experiences.

查看原文本刊更多论文

两种形式的故事：研究生对负责任研究教育中互动性的看法和偏好。

背景：负责任的研究行为 (RCR) 教育在高等教育中的重要性已得到广泛认可。然而，在线 RCR 课程中缺乏互动性仍然是课程设计者和教师所担心的问题。本研究旨在确定 RCR 课程中的互动类型，并通过两个不同的样本来考察研究生在不同课程形式（在线与面对面）中感知到的互动性：第一项研究涉及 191 名参与者，确定了 RCR 学习者互动感知量表的模型结构。结果表明，该量表共有 15 个项目，由三个因素构成：自我控制、人际互动和信息获取。研究二的样本包括 390 名接受过两种形式 RCR 教学的学生，该研究证实了量表的可靠性，并探讨了学生对两种形式中互动类型的看法：值得注意的是，研究 2 中的学生认为面对面形式的人际互动程度更高，而在线课程中的自我控制和信息获取则更为重要。约 80% 的学生表示，如果再有机会选择或推荐一种形式，他们更倾向于完全在线的课程。这种偏好归因于他们倾向于更多的控制和访问，强调了这些因素在塑造他们的学习体验中的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.