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
3
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
The climate-conscious methodologies matrix helps researchers, students, and citizen scientists make ethical and responsible decisions in research. It is especially useful when working with climate-related impacts (such as floods, heatwaves, or droughts), with vulnerable or affected communities.
The tool encourages you to '''ask good questions''' throughout all stages of your research (from the early design to communication of results) and helps you adapt your methods while keeping fairness, safety, and community needs at the centre.
In a changing climate, traditional research methods may not work or may cause harm. Communities may be under stress. Researchers may face risks. By using the matrix, you can:
*'''Stay flexible,''' but still do high-quality research
*'''Respect local people and ecosystems'''
*'''Build trust''' through careful planning and honest communication
*'''Support climate justice''' by including affected voices in all stages of research.
In the following steps 5 deks of cards are presented. Each of them addresses the following methodological components:
*Research design
*Assessment and measurement strategies
*Data evaluation and interpretation
*Ethical issues and scientific integrity
*Communication of research findings
Have a look at how to use the cards by clicking on the link below. +
Taxonomies are usually implemented in learning situations. But in some contexts, we may need to evaluate ethical awareness/sensitivity outside the learning context, for example when analysing comments that people have added as open answers to vignettes in retention checks or REI surveys.
We needed to modify the instrument for measuring ethical sensitivity in a non-training context (see Table 2). The instrument can be used in deductive content analysis.
Table 2. Ethical Awareness and Sensitivity Meter (Tammeleht et al., forthcoming).
[[File:Img6.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
By ethical awareness we mean recognition of ethical aspects, interpreting a situation. In the ethical sensitivity we include awareness, conscious scrutiny of an ethical topic, and recognising intricacies of the issues/participants. +
Theories of normative ethics can be used to analyse participants’ responses to a variety of learning tasks such as analyses of cases or essays, in which participants describe their own approaches to an ethical question or their thinking about ethical matters. If familiarity of ethical approaches or ethical theories are part of the course objectives or intended learning outcomes of the training, an analysis of how the learner has addressed these is very suitable.
For example, the analysis of authentic responses to learning tasks can involve the identification if deontology, virtue, utilitarian ethics, or other approaches, as relevant. The Virt2ue project materials on the Embassy of Good Science [[Instruction:17705907-d9b2-4f33-bc4f-088d84b4d971|Preparatory Viewing: Introduction to Concepts & Themes (embassy.science)]] provides helpful guidance (e.g. a video) into understanding common ethics theories.
The analysis takes a bit of time but may yield interesting information about how learners have understood the concepts. The analysis can focus on the presence of the theoretical concepts in a text, the depth at which the learner uses the theoretical knowledge, or the levels of understanding that the learner displays regarding pertinent ethical theories or approaches. The depth of thinking, which the learner displays, can be analysed with a scheme of levels of reflection or the SOLO taxonomy / ECAG Grid.
[[File:Img11.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Figure 3. Example from a case study analysis done by 7 people displaying ethical approaches (visual from MaxQDA programme).
Figure 3 displays ethical approaches displayed in the case analysis and the level of understanding (SOLO taxonomy): the most prevalent in this group is the rule-based approach, but consequentialism is also quite common. SOLO levels indicate that the level of understanding was mostly on the relational and extended abstract level. +
Focusing and attention are important in obtaining new skills and competencies, the same applies to ethics and integrity. Monitoring physiological markers in the context of ethics training has not been researched much. In the context of education there are examples of studying engagement and heart-rate, but eye-tracking is novel.
Eye-tracking/gaze-tracking may have the potential of revealing new insights about how learners process information for moral judgment in learning situations. Gaze-tracking collects a very large number of data points and thus allows within-person comparisons through focusing on events that are similar and frequent. This enables the analysis of how an individual (re)acts across these situations (Kirkpatrick’s level 2). The data can be viewed for example through heat maps.
To facilitate the analysis, visual markers (QR codes) can be used to locate and synchronise the data. The latest SeeTrue eye tracking device model we have used has a software component to recognize code markers. The gaze tracking device will recognize markers as they appear depending on where the person wearing the device is looking at. Thus, with an additional software component developed by researchers at the University of Helsinki, it has been possible to consolidate the gaze points coordinates of various markers into a unified pair of coordinates, allowing tracking the gaze of the person wearing the device on an idealized static version of the scene which contains the areas of interest, in our case posters on ethical principles and ethics theories (Figure 13a).
Eye-tracking data are analysed statistically and displayed often in density plots or heat-maps (Figure 13b). With these plots we can see what the salient areas of interest observed by a subject during a given time interval in the discussion taking place during an episode happen to be. A sensible temporal analysis of the gaze patterns and scan paths is also possible once this representation is available. An initial analysis suggests that the participant whose gaze is visualized in Figure 13b has focused especially on the ethical principle of beneficence and virtue ethics theory. This information can then be considered in light of the case that the participants were discussing, as well as under prior and subsequent arguments presented by the participant. If understanding ethical principles and ethics theory is an intended learning outcome of the training, then, the way in which learners apply the theories and principles can indicate how effectively the training conveys its content. It is noteworthy that the information in the poster boards should correspond with content related to the intended learning outcomes of the training for this method to be used in assessing training effectiveness.
The analysis is time-consuming and would not be used for large-scale measurement of learning. Specific equipment and software are necessary for collecting and analysing the information. If the facilitator has access to these tools, this measurement gives interesting insights about the learning process. Ethical considerations must be considered: while the equipment is easy to remove, it nevertheless attaches to the body (Hannula et al., 2022).
[[File:Img17.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 13. a) to the left code recognition (with fisheye distortion correction using our own software) and b) to the right density plot (heat map) of the gaze point locations during a short interval.
The tool may be most suitable for students and early-career researchers as the target group of training and in case of small groups.
In order to monitor how ethics competencies develop during the training session and also see if the competencies are retained over a longer period of time reflective learning diaries can be used to monitor the development of REI competencies as well as measure the effectiveness of the training in the long term (Kirkpatrick’s levels 2 and 3). Reflection is a crucial part of ethics education as it supports the development of ethical sensitivity and ethical decision-making (Mustajoki and Mustajoki, 2017; Löfström and Tammeleht, 2023). Written reflection tasks may provide good results as writing offers a chance to pause and have an inner dialogue with oneself.
Implementation is relatively easy, but analysis may take some time. There are different ways to elicit learner’s texts – from pen-and-paper format to individual digital diaries (on various platforms) as well as forum format (where learners can see and respond to each other’s entries). Forum format has provided the best results (Tammeleht et al., 2024). Diaries should be kept during a longer period of time (at least a few months) and include weekly or bimonthly submissions. Some guiding questions or topics should be provided for each entry – this helps to keep focus and guide discussion.
Various instruments can be used for analysis: the SOLO taxonomy to evaluate the level of understanding, reflection levels to see the advancement of reflective skills, content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches) or specific topics relevant for the course content.
There are various ethical aspects to consider when collecting and analysing learning diaries (Thorpe, 2004; Gibbs et al., 2007). Learners can be asked if they would prefer individual or forum format diary-keeping. Depending on the level of trust in the group, forum format may be uncomfortable for some learners. In HE context learners are adults, who take responsibility for writing the entries on time and honestly. This may call for keeping the content confidential unless agreed otherwise
The tool is suitable for students and ECRs. Supervisors may find it challenging to keep a diary in addition to their regular work-load.
Vignettes can be integrated in various contexts, like team training sessions, institutional or national surveys and so on. While the use of vignettes is quite common in the training contexts, comments collected on vignettes is not very common in non-training contexts (e.g. as part of national REI surveys, team meetings, conferences). Still, the comments collected on the vignettes may prove to be a great source of information about the respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and ethical sensitivity (Kirkpatrick’s level 3).
Vignettes contain a situation with one or several ethical aspects and there can be a straightforward solution or not. There are several measures to gauge ethical sensitivity with vignettes – for example, Likert scale can be used to indicate how ethical the situation seems to the respondent. An open-answer option could be added, and research indicates (Parder et al., 2024; Tammeleht et al., forthcoming) that open responses reveal more about ethical sensitivity than quantitative data.
Implementing vignettes into various surveys or team meetings/conferences requires some preparation from the facilitators, but collecting responses and comments is quite simple. Analysing results may take some time, especially in case open answers are scrutinised. We recommend using an EASM (Ethical Awareness and Sensitivity Meter) for measuring the level on sensitivity in the open answers. Content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches) or recognising the topics present in the vignette (similar to the domain-specific measure).
For example, Estonian national REI survey included four vignettes. The survey asked respondents to indicate the ethicality of the situation on a Likert scale (1-6). The results (of statistical analysis) show (figure 1) that the ethicality of vignettes was evaluated on different levels, some topics were considered more unethical than others.
[[File:Img25.png|left|frameless|263x263px]]
Figure 1. Unethical behaviour identified on a Likert scale (all unethical indications) (from Parder et al., 2024).
Then the respondents had a chance to add a comment – this was optional but about a half of the respondents used the opportunity (which may indicate some ethical sensitivity). Open comments were analysed based on the EASM and the picture looked a bit different (see figure 2). Based on the Likert scale results, vignette 4 was not considered very unethical (or not connected to ethics). Open answers revealed that 70% of respondents actually considered the situation to be ethical in nature and showed understanding of the topic. It also became clear that 30% of respondents had completely missed the topic, meaning they had not understood the situation from the ethical perspective.
[[File:Img26.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 2. Analysis of open comments to the vignettes (from Parder et al., 2024).
Overall, it can be concluded that the identified misconceptions and not noticing ethical issues (both on the prestructural level in the SOLO taxonomy) may be the indication that training might be needed to clarify the topics.
This tool is suitable for use in training for ECRs, supervisors/mentors and expert researchers.
From art-science collaborations to technological “fixes” like carbon capture to ancient myths, listen to Sofia Greaves who shares stories of projects at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and beyond. +
Environmental justice does not only invite us to reflect on "what" is affected by research but also "who" is affected, and who has power to shape decisions. In this activity we will engage in an exercise to '''identify''' and explore the '''stakeholders''' connected to your research. This will help you better understand who is affected by your work and in what ways. The Rainbow Diagram will be used to classify stakeholders based on their proximity and influence. The closer a stakeholder is placed to the center, the more directly they are affected by the research or have influence over it. +
Please match the key terms related to the Crisis Tree with their descriptions +
<span lang="en-DE">After exploring the image, consider the following guided reflection prompts</span> +
As we learned in step 1 care ethics values interconnectedness, interdependence, and rejects the individualistic rational autonomy, typical of the colonial wester perspective.
This way of understanding human relationship and of centering care responsibilities at the core of human flourishing was brought forward by feminist scholars and lies at the core of many indigenous practices and knowledges, where the interdependence among being and the reciprocal responsibilities that connect humans, the natural environment, including water and other beings, is recognized.
The concept of “care” is integrated in the discourse and practices of indigenous environmental movements and provide important paradigms for caring as part of environmental ethics.
According to Whyte and Cuomo (2016) indigenous conceptions of care include:
1) the importance of one’s awareness of their own place within a web of different
connections (including humans, non-human beings and entities, and collectives (e.g., forests, seasonal cycles);
2) the understanding of moral connections as including relationships of interdependence that motivate reciprocal responsibilities;
3) the valorization of skills and virtues, such as the wisdom of grandparents and elders, attentiveness to the environment, and indigenous stewardship practices;
4) the will to restore people and communities wounded by injustices by rebuilding
relationships that can generate responsibilities pertinent to the environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss;
5) the conception of political autonomy as involving the protection of the right to serve as responsible stewards of lands and the environment.
These conceptions of care align with the idea that in indigenous knowledge, care
responsibilities extend to nature and the environment. This is exemplified by the concept of kinship (i.e. the bond that exists between members of a group, often a family, based on which relationships, social structures, rights, obligations, and expectations are determined) which in indigenous traditions extends to the place we live in, including nature, animals and the elements which sustain life. In this view, kinship, is not merely a status (defined belonging to a certain group) but an action, and in particular the reciprocal care that members of the kinship exercise for each other.
Watch the video below:
In the previous sessions, we learnt that plastics are not treated the same way. Some can be '''recycled''' and re‑entered into the production cycle, while others can be '''replaced''' with sustainable alternatives. Understanding this distinction is a main step toward reducing waste and making smarter plastics choices in the lab and beyond.
'''Here, you will explore which plastics can be recycled and/or replaced and available alternatives when replacement is the more responsible option.''' +
<span lang="EN-US">Choose the cases you would like to play. The groups can play either the same cases (cases can then be projected on slides) or different ones (cases can be projected by expanding the window below or printed handouts).</span><span lang="EN-US">The cases for handouts can also be found [https://zenodo.org/records/17733497 here].</span>
*Prepare the cases to be shared with the players (print them, put them on slides or other visuals to be used in the activity).
*<span lang="EN-US">Decide whether to hold joint discussions about particular cases across groups or have each group discuss separately.</span>
<div><div><div><span name="_msocom_1"></span></div></div></div> +
Listen to the podcast from 08:07 to 15:35 and answer the questions below +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
This activity helps uncover blind spots in conventional research approaches by encouraging reflexivity and intersectional thinking.
The goal is to reflect on one’s own positionality and framing, not to produce right answers, but to surface assumptions and expand accountability. +
The ethical conduct of research is crucial for maintaining the integrity of science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training Responsible Conduct of Research] (RCR) advances scientific goals, fosters a collaborative research environment, and builds public trust in scientific advances that benefit society. Conversely, unethical research practices such as data fabrication and falsification lead to the dissemination of false hypotheses and unreliable data, which harms the search for valid knowledge. Similarly, plagiarism and harassment undermine respect and trust among researchers, while fraudulent or socially irresponsible research weakens public trust and support for science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training The goals of RCR training] include developing a culture of integrity in science and improving knowledge and awareness about the conduct of research.
RCR training and education should be continuous and extend beyond the academic programme throughout a scientist's career. This education can take place in a variety of contexts, such as seminars, workshops, conferences on research ethics and informal mentoring sessions, training courses and laboratory meetings where ethical behaviour and practises are discussed.
As described by van den Hoven and colleagues, multiple factors influence research integrity (RI) training (learning objectives), RI learning (learning outcomes), and changes in RI behaviour (learning outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"' Through these, it is possible to promote trustworthy science, responsible research practices, and high integrity/ethical standards. "Training effects" Can be conceptualised through the (intended) impacts of RI training on various performance levels, including individual, institutional, and societal levels.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"' Furthermore, the authors distinguish among intended training effects (for example changes in behaviour); training input and output (that is training focus/content and learners orientating themselves towards this content); outcomes (that is, learners change their behaviour); and training impact (manifestation of the outcome, such as decreases in misconduct).
[https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/21896/chapter/15 Effective education in research ethics and integrity aims to achieve several crucial goals.]Defining goals for teaching research integrity and research ethics is crucial to promote and foster responsible research practices and a trustworthy research ecosystem. The main goals to achieve in training RE/RI are related to promoting knowledge (in relation to responsible research practices, norms, and guidelines), skills (in relation to ethical decision-making, problem solving and critical thinking), ‘theoretical’ attitude (in relation to what should be done to foster responsible research) and ‘practical’ behaviour (in relation to how researchers behave in their daily practice).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001E-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001F-QINU`"'
[https://www.structural-learning.com/post/scaffolding-in-education-a-teachers-guide Scaffolding] is a teaching technique, which involves providing tailored support to learners based on their current expertise and gradually withdrawing support as they become more proficient. This approach, researched in the context of research ethics and integrity, is used in both face-to-face and online learning environments, including problem-based and inquiry learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000050-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000051-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000052-QINU`"' Conceptual scaffolding is crucial in problem-based and inquiry learning, helping learners navigate complex concepts and considering various learning styles. Teachers can adjust academic content to suit learners' abilities. Online courses benefit from personalised learning paths that can be adjusted in real-time. Scaffolding aligns with the idea of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, that is instruction and facilitation should target the domain where the learner can function with assistance. It is unnecessary to provide scaffolding in domains which the learner already masters, or which are still beyond the learners reach.
When teaching research ethics and integrity, scaffolding entails dissecting difficult ideas into smaller, more digestible chunks and supporting students as they gain knowledge. Scaffolding can be planned into the design of the course teaching/learning activities and the instructions of these, but often opportunities to incorporate scaffolding techniques present themselves ad hoc. In this case, it is important that the trainer is aware of a variety of techniques and recognises situations in which they can be beneficially used to support learning. The steps for incorporating scaffolding include:
#Identifying what the learner already knows, that is, what is their current level and where is the zone of proximal development;
#Setting goals, which reflect the learning objectives, for the learner in line with what was determined to be within reach in the prior step;
#Planning a suitable breakdown of goals and activities in support of the goals;
#Carrying out the training with scaffolding, monitoring of learning and provision of feedback during the learning;
#Adjusting the support and gradually decreasing it as the learner progresses towards the goal;
#New goals and planning activities as the prior goals are reached.
For example the website [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt.html Scaffolding Over Time] prepared by the Office of Curriculum and Teaching Transformation, University of Buffalo provides more information on Scaffolding for the trainer interested in using this technique.
Table 3 presents a scaffolding framework utilised in research ethics training.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000053-QINU`"'
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!'''Scaffolding process'''
!'''Scaffolding mechanism'''
!'''Scaffolding technique'''
!'''Scaffolding purpose'''
!'''Illustrative example'''
|-
| rowspan="6"|SENSE-MAKING
|Problematising
|Hinting
|Give an indirect suggestion or piece of evidence that leads toward a problem solution (Merriam-Webster)
|‘So, the documents pertaining to research ethics and integrity to consult would be…’ (implying that some documents should be consulted)
|-
|Problematising
|Describing the problem to direct focus
|Orient to the important features (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘Indeed, when you have to get an informed consent you should consider various aspects, for example …’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Making fill-in-the-blank kinds of requests
|A statement or a question with a missing component (but some info is given)
|‘A good way to highlight the importance of research integrity would be to ….?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Asking a leading question (P – why?)
|A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted
|‘Where can you find the information pertaining to the codes of conduct?’
|-
|Structural
|Providing an example
|Giving an example to illustrate a point
|‘For example, in Europe it is a common practice to consult a research integrity advisor.’
|-
|Structural
|Providing physical props
|Helping to understand by mimicking or showing a visual aid
|‘What do you think are the ethical aspects of designing this item?’ (show e.g. a fork)
|-
| rowspan="6"|PROCESS
MANAGEMENT
|Structural
|Pumping
|Simulating to go further without specific instructions (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘OK, what else?’
|-
|Structural
|Redirecting the learner
|Showing which direction to go, which aspect should be tackled next (especially when seeing that the direction is lost/off)
|‘All right, let’s get back to the track and discuss the next steps of the ethics review process’
|-
|Structural
|Decomposing the task
|Making the bigger task into smaller components
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Initiating the reasoning step
|Use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Completing the learners’ reasoning
|‘Splicing in’ the correct answer (Tambaum, 2017)
|(the learner cannot end the thought) ‘... you mean a code of conduct should be consulted?’
|-
|Structural
|Executing parts of the skill
|Do parts of the task for the learner to give an example
|‘OK, so first you consult the ALLEA code of conduct and then …’
|-
| rowspan="3"|ARTICULATION
&
REFLECTION
|Structural
|Maintaining goal orientation
|Reminding the learner of some aspect of the task
|‘Have you also had time to think about …?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Highlighting critical features
|Drawing attention to the most important aspects of the problem; highlighting ‘discrepancies’ (Reiser, 2004)
|‘Do you remember you mentioned the ethics review, what other purposes might it have?’
|-
|Problematising
|Comparing the current problem with a previously solved one
|Showing similarities between solutions
|‘Do you recall the situation that happened to Dr Smith when he invited participants into his survey? This situation may actually have similar implications.’
|}
Offering feedback and facilitating reflection are critical components when using scaffolding in research ethics and integrity training.
Feedback is more effective:
*when given as soon as possible after the session,
*when it is focused,
*when considered as a process, not a one-time shot,
*when receivers participate in the feedback process freely or when doing so is required by regular professional standards,
*when it has a restricted and chosen number of negative comments mixed in with a decent number of positive and encouraging remarks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000054-QINU`"'
*when negative information is "sandwiched" between positive information,
*when it allows the receiver to respond and interact,
*when given frequently, but not excessively,
*when it creates cognitive [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance dissonance].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000055-QINU`"'
Feedback can be provided by the trainer as well as by peers. Peer feedback is effective:
*when information is gathered from different people,
*when it is believed that the information's source is reliable, informed, and has a good intention,
*when the status or career level of the feedback provider and its’ recipient are the same.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000056-QINU`"'
Scaffolding techniques are utilised in [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:76ef100a-e459-4942-bd1f-701f747e8906|ROSiE]], [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], and in the Case studies section of [https://classroom.eneri.eu/ ENERI Classroom].
'"`UNIQ--references-00000057-QINU`"'
[https://www.structural-learning.com/post/scaffolding-in-education-a-teachers-guide Scaffolding] is a teaching technique, which involves providing tailored support to learners based on their current expertise and gradually withdrawing support as they become more proficient. This approach, researched in the context of research ethics and integrity, is used in both face-to-face and online learning environments, including problem-based and inquiry learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000082-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000083-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000084-QINU`"' Conceptual scaffolding is crucial in problem-based and inquiry learning, helping learners navigate complex concepts and considering various learning styles. Teachers can adjust academic content to suit learners' abilities. Online courses benefit from personalised learning paths that can be adjusted in real-time. Scaffolding aligns with the idea of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, that is instruction and facilitation should target the domain where the learner can function with assistance. It is unnecessary to provide scaffolding in domains which the learner already masters, or which are still beyond the learners reach.
When teaching research ethics and integrity, scaffolding entails dissecting difficult ideas into smaller, more digestible chunks and supporting students as they gain knowledge. Scaffolding can be planned into the design of the course teaching/learning activities and the instructions of these, but often opportunities to incorporate scaffolding techniques present themselves ad hoc. In this case, it is important that the trainer is aware of a variety of techniques and recognises situations in which they can be beneficially used to support learning. The steps for incorporating scaffolding include:
#Identifying what the learner already knows, that is, what is their current level and where is the zone of proximal development;
#Setting goals, which reflect the learning objectives, for the learner in line with what was determined to be within reach in the prior step;
#Planning a suitable breakdown of goals and activities in support of the goals;
#Carrying out the training with scaffolding, monitoring of learning and provision of feedback during the learning;
#Adjusting the support and gradually decreasing it as the learner progresses towards the goal;
#New goals and planning activities as the prior goals are reached.
For example the website [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt.html Scaffolding Over Time] prepared by the Office of Curriculum and Teaching Transformation, University of Buffalo provides more information on Scaffolding for the trainer interested in using this technique.
Table 3 presents a scaffolding framework utilised in research ethics training.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000085-QINU`"'
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!'''Scaffolding process'''
!'''Scaffolding mechanism'''
!'''Scaffolding technique'''
!'''Scaffolding purpose'''
!'''Illustrative example'''
|-
| rowspan="6"|SENSE-MAKING
|Problematising
|Hinting
|Give an indirect suggestion or piece of evidence that leads toward a problem solution (Merriam-Webster)
|‘So, the documents pertaining to research ethics and integrity to consult would be…’ (implying that some documents should be consulted)
|-
|Problematising
|Describing the problem to direct focus
|Orient to the important features (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘Indeed, when you have to get an informed consent you should consider various aspects, for example …’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Making fill-in-the-blank kinds of requests
|A statement or a question with a missing component (but some info is given)
|‘A good way to highlight the importance of research integrity would be to ….?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Asking a leading question (P – why?)
|A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted
|‘Where can you find the information pertaining to the codes of conduct?’
|-
|Structural
|Providing an example
|Giving an example to illustrate a point
|‘For example, in Europe it is a common practice to consult a research integrity advisor.’
|-
|Structural
|Providing physical props
|Helping to understand by mimicking or showing a visual aid
|‘What do you think are the ethical aspects of designing this item?’ (show e.g. a fork)
|-
| rowspan="6"|PROCESS
MANAGEMENT
|Structural
|Pumping
|Simulating to go further without specific instructions (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘OK, what else?’
|-
|Structural
|Redirecting the learner
|Showing which direction to go, which aspect should be tackled next (especially when seeing that the direction is lost/off)
|‘All right, let’s get back to the track and discuss the next steps of the ethics review process’
|-
|Structural
|Decomposing the task
|Making the bigger task into smaller components
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Initiating the reasoning step
|Use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Completing the learners’ reasoning
|‘Splicing in’ the correct answer (Tambaum, 2017)
|(the learner cannot end the thought) ‘... you mean a code of conduct should be consulted?’
|-
|Structural
|Executing parts of the skill
|Do parts of the task for the learner to give an example
|‘OK, so first you consult the ALLEA code of conduct and then …’
|-
| rowspan="3"|ARTICULATION
&
REFLECTION
|Structural
|Maintaining goal orientation
|Reminding the learner of some aspect of the task
|‘Have you also had time to think about …?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Highlighting critical features
|Drawing attention to the most important aspects of the problem; highlighting ‘discrepancies’ (Reiser, 2004)
|‘Do you remember you mentioned the ethics review, what other purposes might it have?’
|-
|Problematising
|Comparing the current problem with a previously solved one
|Showing similarities between solutions
|‘Do you recall the situation that happened to Dr Smith when he invited participants into his survey? This situation may actually have similar implications.’
|}
Offering feedback and facilitating reflection are critical components when using scaffolding in research ethics and integrity training.
Feedback is more effective:
*when given as soon as possible after the session,
*when it is focused,
*when considered as a process, not a one-time shot,
*when receivers participate in the feedback process freely or when doing so is required by regular professional standards,
*when it has a restricted and chosen number of negative comments mixed in with a decent number of positive and encouraging remarks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000086-QINU`"'
*when negative information is "sandwiched" between positive information,
*when it allows the receiver to respond and interact,
*when given frequently, but not excessively,
*when it creates cognitive [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance dissonance].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000087-QINU`"'
Feedback can be provided by the trainer as well as by peers. Peer feedback is effective:
*when information is gathered from different people,
*when it is believed that the information's source is reliable, informed, and has a good intention,
*when the status or career level of the feedback provider and its’ recipient are the same.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000088-QINU`"'
Scaffolding techniques are utilised in [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:76ef100a-e459-4942-bd1f-701f747e8906|ROSiE]], [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], and in the Case studies section of [https://classroom.eneri.eu/ ENERI Classroom].
'"`UNIQ--references-00000089-QINU`"'
The taxonomy of Significant Learning or the Fink’s taxonomy is a non-hierarchical system that helps trainers devise learning outcomes to support deep learning. No dimension is considered more important than the other and within the course various aspects should be present.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A3-QINU`"' Thus, this taxonomy provides an alternative frame for devising learning objectives for training.
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''foundational knowledge''': understand and recall ethical information.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''application''': demonstrate skills in ethical analysis and problem-solving.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''integration''': connect ethical theories and compare different approaches.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''human dimension''': recognize the impact of ethical decisions on oneself and others.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· '''caring''': develop empathy and values related to ethics.</span>
· '''learning to learn:''' reflect on the learning process and self-assess ethical understanding.'"`UNIQ--references-000000A4-QINU`"' +
The taxonomy of Significant Learning or the Fink’s taxonomy is a non-hierarchical system that helps trainers devise learning outcomes to support deep learning. No dimension is considered more important than the other and within the course various aspects should be present.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C6-QINU`"' Thus, this taxonomy provides an alternative frame for devising learning objectives for training. The fact that this taxonomy emphasises care and empathy makes it very suitable for training on ethics and integrity. The following is a short overview of the various dimensions:
''Foundational knowledge''
This dimension focuses on content knowledge and includes recalling and understanding of information and ideas.
''Application''
Here the learner demonstrates skills – they can be related to the use of knowledge or include skills necessary to interact in the subject, e.g. critical and creative thinking, decision-making, solving problems etc. For example, using the steps of ethical analysis to solve a situation involving an integrity-related challenge.
''Integration''
In this dimension the learner perceives connections between various ideas, disciplines, and experiences. It includes relating various ideas to each other, comparing, contrasting ideas and examples, and so on. For example, in solving an ethical issue, different ethical theoretical viewpoints may lead to diverse actions and solutions. Recognising how for example a virtue ethical approach may lead to a different solution than reasoning based on utilitarianism may be an expression of integration.
''Human dimension''
Learners learn with others, and they gain new understanding of themselves as well as others and alsoin the learning process. They recognise how people influence each other. Understanding how to respectfully work together for the greater good is an example of how the human dimension materialises positively in practice.
''Caring''
The caring dimension includes an affective stance and involves change in a learner. The learners start to see the reason to care about a topic, they gain new interests, feelings and values about the subject. Empathy and an ethics of care are values compatible with caring.
''Learning to learn''
In this dimension the learner understands that it is not only the outcome of learning that matters but also the process is important. This dimension includes guiding one’s learning for instance by inquiry, reflection and self-assessment. The role of reflection has been emphasised as a key activity in learning and individual development.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C7-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000000C8-QINU`"'
