研究诚信培训的分类标准:研究诚信课程的设计、实施和改进。

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Mariëtte van den Hoven, Tom Lindemann, Linda Zollitsch, Julia Prieß-Buchheit
{"title":"研究诚信培训的分类标准:研究诚信课程的设计、实施和改进。","authors":"Mariëtte van den Hoven, Tom Lindemann, Linda Zollitsch, Julia Prieß-Buchheit","doi":"10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses.\",\"authors\":\"Mariëtte van den Hoven, Tom Lindemann, Linda Zollitsch, Julia Prieß-Buchheit\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129911/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

培训师经常利用以前学习课程的信息来设计或重新设计课程。尽管大学在过去几十年中开展了大量研究诚信培训,但有关研究诚信培训中哪些有效、哪些无效的信息仍然很零散。最新的元综述为培训师提供了一些关于有效教学活动的信息。然而,它们缺乏信息来确定哪些活动对于特定目标群体和学习成果是可行的,因此无法以最佳方式为课程设计决策提供支持。本文希望改变这种现状,并根据柯克帕特里克的四个评估层次,概述了一种易于使用的研究诚信培训分类法,以促进相互交流,改进研究诚信课程设计。本文详细描述了研究诚信培训(TRIT)分类法,并概述了三个欧洲项目、项目开始前的预期培训效果、学习成果、教学活动及其评估工具,从而介绍了一种统一的方法。本文为从业人员提供了参考,以确定教学的相互关系和影响,以及如何(重新)设计 RI 课程的(知识)差距。所建议的分类法易于使用,可提高研究诚信培训的针对性和循证(重新)设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses.

A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses.

A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses.

A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses.

Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信