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
Plastic is classified into seven main categories, each defined primarily by its distinct chemical properties.
'''To learn more about these categories, match the types of plastic with their descriptions'''. +
<div>
<span lang="EN-US">Next, click through the various ecofeminist research dilemmas and choose how you would respond to them. There is no right or wrong answer ''per se'', you can also go through this multiple times to see different outcomes. This is just to get you thinking about various research dilemmas and the principles discussed above!</span>
</div> +
Laboratories are very energy intensive. In this session, you will explore practical, daily actions that can significantly reduce the energy loads in lab spaces. The video “'''Saving energy in your lab'''” discusses how energy is used in a lab and offers tips on how energy use can be reduced.
'''Watch this video to learn about actions that can reduce energy base- and peak load and reflect on potential challenges related to implementation actions aimed at enhancing efficient energy use in labs.''' +
Now that you have learned about environmental justice, we invite you to reflect on your research by answering the questions below. +
<div>
<span lang="EN-US">After reading the text below, complete each blank by selecting the most appropriate word from the list provided. This activity is designed to help you reflect on how these skills contribute to addressing complex sustainability challenges and improving problem-solving in engineering contexts.</span>
</div> +
Look closely at the image and reflect on the issues that might be affecting your research. Hover over the image to reveal example reflection questions that can help you reflect on your research. +
<span lang="EL">Please take 10 minutes to hover over the figure and explore the concepts (from <span lang="en-DE">→ to)</span> interactively.</span> +
Look back at the 5 phases of care by Toronto and think about your research. How could you reflect on and integrate the 5 phases of care in your research? You can think about your
research design or a specific phase of your research.
For inspiration you can look at this article where a research group describes in detail how
they have integrate the and reflected upon the 5 phases of care in their research.
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09650792.2018.1450771?utm_source=researchgate.net&medium=article] +
<span lang="EN-US">The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion and promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills. The game is played in groups of 3–6 players. There can be as many groups as needed, although facilitation might require more effort with more groups. The cases focus on issues that are especially relevant for young and/or early career researchers and attempt has been made to cover topics that have emerged more recently in research ethics and integrity field (AI, researcher rehabilitation etc.).</span> +
<span lang="EN-US">Listen to: [2:16–4:00], [6:28–8:23]</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Listen and pay attention to how Laura del Duca defines different types of justice.</span> +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
After the presentation, reflect on the following:
* Which of these four themes feels most relevant to your current research or study field?
* Can you identify a research decision (e.g., topic, method, interpretation) that might be shaped by your own position or assumptions?
* What is one insight or discomfort you experienced during the slides? +
Test +
Examine the Rotterdam Dilemma Game cases and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. If using the Dilemma Game [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game app], start a new 'room' in group mode, creating a name for the room and specifying that it will be used for a 'lecture'. You will then be able to select the cases.
Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed at reflecting on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics. Besides, while selecting the cases, take the attributes of the trainee group into account as well. For example, if you are going to play the game with a group of PhD students, then you should pick the cases suitable for them.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
The BEYOND Trainer Guide introduces effectiveness measures to help trainers assess whether the training provided is impactful and beneficial. The versatile evaluation tools are designed to be applicable to various target groups and compatible with a variety of training activities and resources. Such evaluation measures are often absent in training resources, yet they provide trainers with a valuable mechanism to ensure how effectively training supports learning. Understanding how training facilitates learning and development is necessary in the process of fostering and strengthening integrity in the research community. Provision of training is a necessary component of the overall building of a culture of integrity. Yet training, the effects of which are not monitored, falls short of its potential to mirror the change it contributes to the research community. Therefore, in the orchard approach, learning and development provides important information about the readiness of the community to build a culture of integrity. Evaluating training effectiveness to ensure training programmes achieve their intended outcomes is crucial because it connects training investments to tangible results, ensuring that the effort put into developing and delivering training is worthwhile, and for pinpointing further development needs.
Effectiveness of research ethics and integrity (REI) training can be viewed through an established effectiveness framework, which identifies four outcome domains, namely:
1. reactions (participants’ self-assessment),
2. learning (knowledge, content),
3. behaviour (acting in the research community),
4. results (e.g. institutional outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"'
Evaluating development of ethical competencies should be determined through done as a system to get a more holistic picture. To do this, one can combine different forms of measurement, such as self-assessment and facilitator feedback as well as attitudes and behaviour treats (in tasks that display REI competencies in the research community, like research proposals, ethics sections of theses, articles, etc.). Furthermore, measurement could take place at different times to gain insight into the learning process, learning outcome, and long-term implications, namely:
• during the training (learning process),
• right after the training – students' and facilitator’s self-reports,
• later as part of another event or course where the display of REI competencies is expected (like RE section in theses and articles, research proposal, evaluation of RE situation in the department, etc.)
It is also important to consider what to do with the results, that is what kind of changes are necessary to improve teaching and/or the environment to build a culture of integrity.
Different tools can be used to collect various learning outputs and analysis instruments can be implemented to analyse the information that has been collected (Table 2). By analysis instruments we mean the taxonomies of learning and application of theoretical models, such as levels of reflection, ethical principles and so on (if data available are mainly in a qualitative format) or statistics and learning analytics (if the data are mainly in quantitative format).
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 1: Tools and analytical instruments for collecting learning outputs in research ethics and integrity training
!Tool for collecting learning outputs
!Details
!Analysis instrument
|-
|'''''ProLearning'' app'''
|''ProLearning'': https://www.epfl.ch/labs/chili/dualt/current-projects/realto/
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Engagement app'''
|App under development, [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os form] (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Self-Reflection Form/Compass'''
|App under development, [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os form] (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Pre-post texts'''
|Collect a short text (e.g. a response to a case or short essay) before the training and after the training
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Learning diaries'''
|Ask learners keep a diary over a certain period, for each submission provide some guiding questions or topics
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Group reports'''
|Ask groups working together to provide a (short) group report (or provide a template with points to work on)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group discussions'''
|Monitor the group discussions to evaluate the level of understanding and content discussed (scaffold as appropriate)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group dynamics'''
|''CoTrack'' application: https://www.cotrack.website/en/
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Online learning platform'''
|Make use of accumulated authentic learning outputs in the learning platform.
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, reflection scale, content criteria
|-
|'''Domain-specific/ domain-transcending measure'''
|Use either of the two forms measuring recognition and exemplifying of ethical issues.
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Retention check'''
|After a certain time (few weeks/months) ask learners to provide a short text (analysis of a case, short essay on an ethics topic/question). Compare the levels of understanding to another piece collected during or right after the training.
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Vignettes'''
|This can be used for measuring ethical sensitivity in (non-)training context
|statistics, EASM (based on the SOLO taxonomy), content criteria
|-
|'''National surveys'''
|Can be used for analysing training-related content in reports and monitoring the display of REI leadership.
|statistics, REI leadership framework
|}
Evaluation tools can give further insight into the effectiveness of the training and materials proposed. This will help trainers to adjust training content and delivery methods to improve trainees’ learning experience and outcomes. We propose mixing various tools for collecting learning outputs and adjusting them to the intended target groups (throughout the training guide suggestions are provided on which tools would be most suitable for various target groups).
'"`UNIQ--references-00000010-QINU`"'
<blockquote>"The integrative review presented here examines how reproducibility and replicability are conceptualized and discussed in relation to qualitative research, and which factors and practices enable or undermine them. Both peer-reviewed and grey English-language literature that address reproducibility and/or Open Science in relation to qualitative research were eligible for inclusion. Initial searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, PubMed, APA PsychInfo, and JSTOR, and followed with snowball sampling from included literature. Studies were screened and both quantitative and qualitative data were extracted using the SyRF online platform, with 248 papers included. We found that conceptualizations that stem from quantitative standpoints are overwhelmingly framed as inappropriate practices and epistemic criteria for (most) qualitative research. When conceptualized in alternative ways that are adapted to the epistemic conditions, aims and practices of qualitative research, they can be both applicable and appropriate. Key barriers include the ontological and epistemological misalignment of reproducibility, replicability and Open Science and qualitative research, and ethical and practical concerns surrounding data sharing and reuse. Key enablers include practices that respond to ethical and practical concerns around data sharing and reuse (anonymization, ethical consent practices, context documentation, and ethical access management), adapting expectations and norms of openness, and established qualitative practices including documentation, reflexivity, and considering positionality. We conclude that reproducibility, replicability and Open Science practices must be adapted to the aims and epistemic conditions of qualitative research for them to be applicable and feasible, and that they will not always be both for all qualitative research."
Find the full paper here: [https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/n5zkw_v1 MetaArXiv Preprints - Reproducibility and replicability of qualitative research: an integrative review of concepts, barriers and enablers].</blockquote>
Reference:
Cole, N. L., Ulpts, S., Bochynska, A., Kormann, E., Good, M., Leitner, B., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024, December 23). Reproducibility and replicability of qualitative research: an integrative review of concepts, barriers and enablers. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000002D-QINU`"'
<span lang="EN-US">The [https://osf.io/pn27g Reproducibility Management Plan (RMP) Pilot] aims to create a prototype of key thematic subjects and questions that will serve as the starting point to support reproducibility at the planning stage of research. Work involves defining what an RMP is, integrating it into the ARGOS service, and testing its effectiveness with feedback from the community. The pilot addresses researchers, beneficiaries and funders for its adoption.</span><div>
Please find the integrated ARGOS tool here: <u>https://argos.openaire.eu/portal/</u><u>.</u>
<u><span lang="EN-US">Tutorials on OpenPlato:</span></u>
# <u>'''<span lang="EN-US">ARGOS Service for Admins</span>'''<span lang="EN-US">: https://openplato.eu/course/view.php?id=150</span></u>
# <u>'''<span lang="EN-US">ARGOS Info Pack</span>'''<span lang="EN-US">: https://openplato.eu/course/view.php?id=547</span></u>
# <u>'''<span lang="EN-US">ARGOS Service for Users</span>'''<span lang="EN-US">: https://openplato.eu/course/view.php?id=122</span></u>
</div><div>
<u><span lang="EN-US">Reports on co-creation activities: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000036-QINU`"'</span></u>
</div> +
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-0000003C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000003D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000003E-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-0000003F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000040-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000041-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-00000042-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000043-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000044-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-00000045-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000046-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000047-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000048-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-00000049-QINU`"'
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-0000006E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000006F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000070-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-00000071-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000072-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-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-00000074-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000075-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000076-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-00000077-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000078-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000079-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007A-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-0000007B-QINU`"'
Besides using Bloom’s Taxonomy to define learning objectives, the [https://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/ SOLO Taxonomy] can be used .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000096-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"' The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome, or SOLO, is a way to set the learning outcomes according to how complicated they are.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"' This allows us to evaluate students' work based on its quality following the idea of increasing understanding of complexities: Initially, we learn one or a few aspects of the task (unistructural), then multiple aspects that are unrelated to each other (multistructural), then we learn how to integrate them into a whole (relational), and lastly, we can generalise that whole to still-untaught applications (extended abstract). It evaluates the quality of students' work and understanding:
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''pre-structural''': identify basic ethical concepts without fully understanding them.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''unistructural''': recognize and label simple ethical procedures.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''multistructural''': enumerate and describe ethical principles but struggle to connect them.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''relational''': analyze and apply ethical concepts, understanding interrelations.</span>
· '''extended abstract''': generalize and theorize ethical principles to solve novel dilemmas.[[File:SOLOtaxonomy.png|alt=|center|frame|Fig 32. SOLO taxonomy (taken from Tammeleht & Löfström, 2023)]]
The SOLO taxonomy has been used to evaluate effectiveness of trainings as well as the development of ethical sensitivity and has been proven to be effective in the context of research ethics and integrity training.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000009B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000009C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000009D-QINU`"' The verbs emphasised in the descriptions below can be used as indicators of the appropriate levels in learning objectives.
''Pre-structural level (0)''
At the pre-structural level the learner fails to identify or approach topics in a meaningful way, but simply repeats the words in the question without understanding them.
''Unistructural level (1)''
At the unistructural level, the learner has sufficient knowledge to identify, recognise, count, find, label, match, name, and perform follow simple procedures. The learner identifies one relevant aspect displaying some familiarity with relevant concepts, but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it. In the context of research ethics and integrity, this may mean identifying certain, perhaps common concepts, but having a limited view of them. For example, the learner may be able to identify some of the things that ought to be mentioned in an information letter to research participants but fails to understand all aspects of ensuring voluntary participation in research.
''Multi-structural level (2)''
At the multistructural level, the learner can enumerate, describe, illustrate, list, sequence, select, combine, and follow procedures, but struggles to make connections between concepts or draw conclusions based on interrelations. For example, the learner may understand that informed consent is necessary in research but fails to understand that this is so because of the need to respect people’s autonomy and right to make decisions that concern themselves.
''Relational level (3)''
At the relational level, the learner displays an ability to address the most relevant aspects of the concept and provide explanations pointing out interrelations and providing examples demonstrating their own reasoning. Corresponding action verbs include; analyse, apply, argue, compare, contrast, critique, explain causes, relate and justify. For example, the learner understands at least the main mechanisms and connections between FFP and the detrimental effects to science.
''Extended abstract level (4)''
At the extended abstract level, the coherent whole is generalised or re-conceptualised at a higher level of abstraction. The learner grasps a more abstract version of the concept, and recognises other domains to which the concept might be applied by displaying the ability to theorise, generate, generalise, hypothesise, create or reflect, formulate and reflect. For example, the learner is able to use knowledge about ethical analysis and ethical principles to solve a novel integrity-related dilemma, which the learner recognises is affecting a research group, but to which the learner has not been exposed before.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"'
Besides using Bloom’s Taxonomy to define learning objectives, the [https://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/ SOLO Taxonomy] can be used .'"`UNIQ--ref-000000B9-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000BA-QINU`"' The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome, or SOLO, is a way to set the learning outcomes according to how complicated they are.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000BB-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000BC-QINU`"' In this way, the students' work can be assessed according to its quality and not according to how many parts they have understood correctly: initially, we learn one or a few aspects of the task (unistructural), then multiple aspects that are unrelated to each other (multistructural), then we learn how to integrate them into a whole (relational), and lastly, we can generalise that whole to still-untaught applications (extended abstract).
[[File:SOLOtaxonomy.png|alt=|center|frame|Fig 32. SOLO taxonomy (taken from Tammeleht & Löfström, 2023)]]
The SOLO taxonomy has been used to evaluate effectiveness of trainings as well as the development of ethical sensitivity and has been proven to be effective in the context of research ethics and integrity training.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000BD-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000BE-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000BF-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000C0-QINU`"' The verbs emphasised in the descriptions below can be used as indicators of the appropriate levels in learning objectives.
''Pre-structural level (0)''
At the pre-structural level the learner fails to identify or approach topics in a meaningful way, but simply repeats the words in the question without understanding them.
''Unistructural level (1)''
At the unistructural level, the learner has sufficient knowledge to identify, recognise, count, find, label, match, name, and perform follow simple procedures. The learner identifies one relevant aspect displaying some familiarity with relevant concepts, but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it. In the context of research ethics and integrity, this may mean identifying certain, perhaps common concepts, but having a limited view of them. For example, the learner may be able to identify some of the things that ought to be mentioned in an information letter to research participants but fails to understand all aspects of ensuring voluntary participation in research.
''Multi-structural level (2)''
At the multistructural level, the learner can enumerate, describe, illustrate, list, sequence, select, combine, and follow procedures, but struggles to make connections between concepts or draw conclusions based on interrelations. For example, the learner may understand that informed consent is necessary in research but fails to understand that this is so because of the need to respect people’s autonomy and right to make decisions that concern themselves.
''Relational level (3)''
At the relational level, the learner displays an ability to address the most relevant aspects of the concept and provide explanations pointing out interrelations and providing examples demonstrating their own reasoning. Corresponding action verbs include; analyse, apply, argue, compare, contrast, critique, explain causes, relate and justify. For example, the learner understands at least the main mechanisms and connections between FFP and the detrimental effects to science.
''Extended abstract level (4)''
At the extended abstract level, the coherent whole is generalised or re-conceptualised at a higher level of abstraction. The learner grasps a more abstract version of the concept, and recognises other domains to which the concept might be applied by displaying the ability to theorise, generate, generalise, hypothesise, create or reflect, formulate and reflect. For example, the learner is able to use knowledge about ethical analysis and ethical principles to solve a novel integrity-related dilemma, which the learner recognises is affecting a research group, but to which the learner has not been exposed before.
'"`UNIQ--references-000000C1-QINU`"'
