A dramatized method for teaching undergraduate students responsible research conduct.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2021.1981871
Kuei-Chiu Chen, Laurel L Hester
{"title":"A dramatized method for teaching undergraduate students responsible research conduct.","authors":"Kuei-Chiu Chen,&nbsp;Laurel L Hester","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2021.1981871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Worldwide, undergraduate science and pre-medical students are encouraged to participate in authentic active learning lab work and undergraduate research experiences. Unfortunately, these experiences rarely include training in science or research ethics. Although several governmental and scientific organizations have called for increased training in responsible research conduct, relatively few studies report on the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches. Too often science ethics socialization and training is limited to conversations with individual mentors. This paper describes how viewing an interactive theatrical presentation of several research misconduct scenarios was associated with an increase in first-year students' self-assessed understanding of the topics addressed: proper treatment of data images, respect for animal protocols, authorship considerations, and plagiarism issues. There was no decrease in self-reported responsible conduct of research (RCR) knowledge for students surveyed 10 weeks, as compared to 2 weeks, after the science ethics presentations. RCR test question scores showed only a slight decrease in correct answers from 2 to 10 weeks. Theatrical presentation is an inexpensive yet engaging approach that provides students with a chance to actively consider the importance of RCR and the complexities of contexts surrounding ethics decisions before starting a research career.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":"30 3","pages":"176-198"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","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/10.1080/08989621.2021.1981871","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

Worldwide, undergraduate science and pre-medical students are encouraged to participate in authentic active learning lab work and undergraduate research experiences. Unfortunately, these experiences rarely include training in science or research ethics. Although several governmental and scientific organizations have called for increased training in responsible research conduct, relatively few studies report on the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches. Too often science ethics socialization and training is limited to conversations with individual mentors. This paper describes how viewing an interactive theatrical presentation of several research misconduct scenarios was associated with an increase in first-year students' self-assessed understanding of the topics addressed: proper treatment of data images, respect for animal protocols, authorship considerations, and plagiarism issues. There was no decrease in self-reported responsible conduct of research (RCR) knowledge for students surveyed 10 weeks, as compared to 2 weeks, after the science ethics presentations. RCR test question scores showed only a slight decrease in correct answers from 2 to 10 weeks. Theatrical presentation is an inexpensive yet engaging approach that provides students with a chance to actively consider the importance of RCR and the complexities of contexts surrounding ethics decisions before starting a research career.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学生负责任科研行为的戏剧化教学方法。
在世界范围内,本科理科和医学预科学生被鼓励参与真正的主动学习实验室工作和本科研究经历。不幸的是,这些经历很少包括科学或研究伦理方面的培训。虽然一些政府和科学组织呼吁加强负责任的研究行为方面的培训,但是关于不同教学方法的有效性的研究报告相对较少。科学伦理的社会化和培训往往局限于与个别导师的对话。本文描述了观看几个研究不当行为场景的互动戏剧展示如何与一年级学生对所讨论主题的自我评估理解的增加相关:正确处理数据图像,尊重动物协议,作者考虑和抄袭问题。在科学伦理陈述后10周,与2周相比,接受调查的学生自我报告的负责任的研究行为(RCR)知识没有减少。RCR测试的问题分数显示,从2周到10周,正确答案只有轻微下降。戏剧展示是一种廉价但引人入胜的方法,它为学生提供了一个机会,在开始研究生涯之前,积极考虑RCR的重要性和围绕伦理决策的背景的复杂性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
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.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1