Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
2
Collaborative learning is a pedagogical approach that emphasises active participation, shared responsibility and mutual support among students. Collaborative learning is based on the idea that the production and internalisation of the knowledge is established by collaboration. Moreover, learning is usually best supported through social negotiation rarther than competition. Furthermore, team learning has been demonstrated to significantly enhance ethical practice. Research indicates that students primarily interpret their socialisation into academia and their field by the ethical standards and practices that they observe.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000071-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000072-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-QINU`"'
When teaching research ethics and integrity, collaborative learning can be particularly effective as it can promote deeper understanding, critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. In collaborative learning environments, students are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively receiving information. They participate in discussions, debates and hands-on activities that require them to grapple with ethical dilemmas, analyse complex issues and apply ethical principles to real-world scenarios. This active engagement promotes deeper learning and retention of ethical concepts and principles. Collaborative learning encourages students to critically evaluate information, perspectives and arguments related to research ethics and integrity. Through discussions with peers, analysing case studies and reflecting on their own ethical beliefs and values, learners develop the ability to identify ethical issues, consider alternative viewpoints and make informed decisions.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000074-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000075-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000076-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for learners to challenge assumptions, explore ethical complexity and develop reasoned arguments based on evidence and ethical principles. Peer interaction is a central component of collaborative learning that allows learners to learn from each other's experiences, perspectives, and insights. By participating in discussions, debates, and collaborative projects with their peers, learners learn about various viewpoints, cultural perspectives, and disciplinary approaches to research ethics and integrity. Peer interaction also fosters collaboration, communication skills and teamwork, which are essential for addressing ethical challenges in research environments where collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation are increasingly common.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000077-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000078-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000079-QINU`"'
During collaborating trainings, a variety of teaching methods can be used. Prior research has addressed collaborative learning with the use of case-based approaches, storytelling, flipped classroom, and role play and games (e.g., [https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/ Rotterdam dilemma game]) .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000007A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007D-QINU`"'
Collaborative approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-0000007E-QINU`"'
The [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ Path2Integrity] project introduces educators to innovative teaching methods that cover topics in research integrity and ethics. The project provides introductory videos and information on the teaching methodology used, discussing research integrity and its significance. +
3
Sufficient time should be given to trainees to prepare for the first session and for practicing the exercises in between the sessions. When preparing the schedule for the training you:
a. Distribute preparation materials (including online modules and assignments) at least one month prior to the first participatory session.
b. Plan at least two months’ time in between the first participatory session(s) and the follow up session. +
Invite trainees to facilitate exercises in the way they did in their own work setting give then feedback and ask them to elaborate on possible modifications in the structure or steps of the exercises. +
Ask the group who they vouch for: Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis. Show their picture with their names so that all participants remember who is who. Based on their choice, the group is divided in two groups.
1. If one group turns out to be really small, you can ask if a couple of participants feel condent to switch teams.
2. In case there are some participants who don’t feel condent to choose either one, you could decide to include them in the exercise as observers. +
Facilitate each exercise and evaluate/reflect upon the experiences with your training participants. After facilitating each exercise reflect on your experience and on your role as trainer by filling in the '''[https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 self-reflection form]'''. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Plenary discussion of oneVariety of Goodness in research. The trainer prepared a presentation including:
*Brief explanation of this Variety of Goodness
*Links the Variety of Goodness to research
*Links ECoC to this Variety of Goodness
*Links examples for the preparation sheet by participants to the Variety of Goodness
In each step of the reflection on this Variety of Goodness, the trainer asks the participants to also name examples of research, the code of conduct and own experiences. +
After completing the training and after having trained 10 researchers (time investment 60 h) you are eligible to receive the 'Trainer' certificate from the VIRT2UE consortium. Please discuss with your trainer to check that you have indeed met all of the course requirements. +
This module explores the difference between responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and questionable research practices. This differentiation is exemplified explicitly and/or implied, e.g. regarding the prevalence and impact of research misconduct and breaches of responsible research practices. Publication pressure, and its implications on the integrity of research is discussed as one major driver of breaches of research integrity. This discussion is complemented by an exercise to foster reflection about the effect of publication pressure.
[http://courses.embassy.science/scope_of_research_integrity/story.html Open the course] +
This module offers a definition of a virtue, and introduces virtues that are relevant for research . Along the historic example of Galileo Galilei, five virtues are discussed in more detail in its relevance for research integrity.
[http://courses.embassy.science/virtues_in_research/story.html Open course] +
This module aims to both explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics informing the application of self-justification strategies in research. In a two-step exercise, learners are first required to choose the most relevant violation of research integrity in their discipline. Then, they are asked to write different types of self-justification strategies (e.g. denial of responsibility, trivialization) that has previously been introduced to them with the example of honorary authorship.
[http://courses.embassy.science/why_we_justify_unethical_behaviour/story.html Open course] +
This module explores the difference between responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and questionable research practices. Publication pressure, and its implication for the integrity of research is discussed as a major driver of breaches of research integrity. This discussion is complemented by an exercise to foster reflection about the effect of publication pressure.
[[File:Scope of Research Integrity.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/scope_of_research_integrity/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Scope%20of%20Research%20Integrity_SCORM.zip here] +
This module offers a definition of a virtue, and introduces virtues that are relevant for research . Along the historic example of Galileo Galilei, five virtues are discussed in more detail in its relevance for research integrity.
[[File:Virtues in Research.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/virtues_in_research/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Virtues%20in%20Research_SCORM.zip here] +
Can you be too honest? This exercise helps to develop moral sensitivity with respect to basic virtues related to Research Integrity (RI). In particular it fosters reflection on the inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues and how this ambiguity looks like in concrete research practice.
[[File: MPE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjov1WIvKvg&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=5]] +
During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts on the importance and usefulness of Research Integrity networks.
[[File: Research Integrity Networks3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCv718oBPl0&list=PLabbUwyulArzx9SIqxfDXbtTELS8uWdFD&index=4]] +
During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts on their opinions and views on Research Integrity education
[[File: Research Integrity Education3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKhvewTNP4]] +
Get active networking with research ethics and research integrity experts! +
The third episode is currently under construction. +
The third episode is currently under construction. +
This module aims to both explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics informing the application of self-justification strategies in research. In a two-step exercise, learners are first required to choose the most relevant violation of research integrity in their discipline. Then, they are asked to write different types of self-justification strategies (e.g. denial of responsibility, trivialization) that has previously been introduced to them with the example of honorary authorship.
[[File:Why we Justify Unethical Behaviour.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/why_we_justify_unethical_behaviour/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Why%20we%20justify%20unethical%20behaviour_SCORM.zip here] +
