开发和验证教与学研究诚信的能力特征

Jurij Selan, Mira Metljak
{"title":"开发和验证教与学研究诚信的能力特征","authors":"Jurij Selan, Mira Metljak","doi":"10.26529/cepsj.1618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since research integrity is not external to research but an integral part of it, it should be integrated into research training. However, several hindrances regarding contemporary research integrity education exist. To address them, we have developed a competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity based on four assumptions: 1) to include all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD); 2) to integrate research integrity into research education itself; 3) to address research integrity issues in context-specific practices; and 4) to pay particular attention to the ‘grey zone’ or questionable research practices. To assess the validity of the content of the competency profile and to determine if some adjustments to the profile are needed, we translated the competencies of the profile into items of a measurement instrument (a questionnaire) and conducted a survey amongst University of Ljubljana students that allowed us to 1) obtain information about students’ attitudes toward issues of integrity in research; 2) analyse differences in these attitudes among BA, MA, and PhD students; and 3) statistically validate the competency profile and suggest possible improvements. The results showed that 1) students are highly aware of research integrity issues, as scores were high on all items assessed. However, there were some deviations to lower scores, especially in relation to questionable research practises, confirming our assumption that the ‘grey zone’ issues are those that should be particularly addressed and given special attention in contemporary research integrity education. 2) The differences in the attitudes of BA, MA, and PhD students showed that higher-level students showed significantly more awareness of integrity issues than lower-level students did, suggesting that research integrity issues should be given special attention at the BA study level. 3) The measurement characteristics showed that the reliability of the questionnaire was very high, suggesting a good overall structure of the competency profile. The principal component analysis also confirmed the four-field structure of the Competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations). However, the analysis also showed that the substructure of the four main areas of the profile did not fully match the results of the factor analysis, suggesting that the distribution of competencies in the competency profile could be reconsidered, especially in the area of Research Practice. The most recent developments in the field of research integrity also suggest that the competency profile should be updated with issues regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on research integrity.","PeriodicalId":38159,"journal":{"name":"Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing and Validating the Competency Profile for Teaching and Learning Research Integrity\",\"authors\":\"Jurij Selan, Mira Metljak\",\"doi\":\"10.26529/cepsj.1618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since research integrity is not external to research but an integral part of it, it should be integrated into research training. However, several hindrances regarding contemporary research integrity education exist. To address them, we have developed a competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity based on four assumptions: 1) to include all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD); 2) to integrate research integrity into research education itself; 3) to address research integrity issues in context-specific practices; and 4) to pay particular attention to the ‘grey zone’ or questionable research practices. To assess the validity of the content of the competency profile and to determine if some adjustments to the profile are needed, we translated the competencies of the profile into items of a measurement instrument (a questionnaire) and conducted a survey amongst University of Ljubljana students that allowed us to 1) obtain information about students’ attitudes toward issues of integrity in research; 2) analyse differences in these attitudes among BA, MA, and PhD students; and 3) statistically validate the competency profile and suggest possible improvements. The results showed that 1) students are highly aware of research integrity issues, as scores were high on all items assessed. However, there were some deviations to lower scores, especially in relation to questionable research practises, confirming our assumption that the ‘grey zone’ issues are those that should be particularly addressed and given special attention in contemporary research integrity education. 2) The differences in the attitudes of BA, MA, and PhD students showed that higher-level students showed significantly more awareness of integrity issues than lower-level students did, suggesting that research integrity issues should be given special attention at the BA study level. 3) The measurement characteristics showed that the reliability of the questionnaire was very high, suggesting a good overall structure of the competency profile. The principal component analysis also confirmed the four-field structure of the Competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations). However, the analysis also showed that the substructure of the four main areas of the profile did not fully match the results of the factor analysis, suggesting that the distribution of competencies in the competency profile could be reconsidered, especially in the area of Research Practice. The most recent developments in the field of research integrity also suggest that the competency profile should be updated with issues regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on research integrity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

既然科研诚信不是外部的,而是科研的一个组成部分,那么科研诚信就应该融入科研训练中。然而,当代科研诚信教育存在着一些障碍。为了解决这些问题,我们基于以下四个假设制定了教学和学习研究完整性的能力概况:1)包括所有级别的研究(学士、硕士和博士);2)将科研诚信融入科研教育本身;3)在具体实践中解决研究诚信问题;4)特别注意“灰色地带”或有问题的研究实践。为了评估胜任力简介内容的有效性,并确定是否需要对简介进行一些调整,我们将简介的胜任力转换为测量工具(问卷)的项目,并在卢布尔雅那大学的学生中进行了一项调查,使我们能够1)获得关于学生对研究诚信问题的态度的信息;2)分析学士、硕士和博士在这些态度上的差异;3)统计验证胜任力概况并提出可能的改进建议。结果显示:1)学生对研究诚信问题的意识很高,所有项目的得分都很高。然而,有一些偏差导致较低的分数,特别是与有问题的研究实践有关,这证实了我们的假设,即“灰色地带”问题是当代研究诚信教育中应该特别解决和给予特别关注的问题。2)学士、硕士、博士对诚信问题的态度差异表明,高水平学生对诚信问题的意识明显高于低水平学生,这表明在本科学习层面,科研诚信问题应得到特别重视。3)测量特征表明,问卷的信度很高,表明胜任力特征具有良好的整体结构。主成分分析也证实了能力特征的四个领域结构(价值观和原则、研究实践、出版和传播以及违规行为)。然而,分析还表明,四个主要领域的子结构与因子分析的结果并不完全匹配,这表明能力特征中的能力分布可以重新考虑,特别是在研究实践领域。研究诚信领域的最新发展也表明,应该在人工智能对研究诚信的影响方面更新能力概况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Developing and Validating the Competency Profile for Teaching and Learning Research Integrity
Since research integrity is not external to research but an integral part of it, it should be integrated into research training. However, several hindrances regarding contemporary research integrity education exist. To address them, we have developed a competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity based on four assumptions: 1) to include all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD); 2) to integrate research integrity into research education itself; 3) to address research integrity issues in context-specific practices; and 4) to pay particular attention to the ‘grey zone’ or questionable research practices. To assess the validity of the content of the competency profile and to determine if some adjustments to the profile are needed, we translated the competencies of the profile into items of a measurement instrument (a questionnaire) and conducted a survey amongst University of Ljubljana students that allowed us to 1) obtain information about students’ attitudes toward issues of integrity in research; 2) analyse differences in these attitudes among BA, MA, and PhD students; and 3) statistically validate the competency profile and suggest possible improvements. The results showed that 1) students are highly aware of research integrity issues, as scores were high on all items assessed. However, there were some deviations to lower scores, especially in relation to questionable research practises, confirming our assumption that the ‘grey zone’ issues are those that should be particularly addressed and given special attention in contemporary research integrity education. 2) The differences in the attitudes of BA, MA, and PhD students showed that higher-level students showed significantly more awareness of integrity issues than lower-level students did, suggesting that research integrity issues should be given special attention at the BA study level. 3) The measurement characteristics showed that the reliability of the questionnaire was very high, suggesting a good overall structure of the competency profile. The principal component analysis also confirmed the four-field structure of the Competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations). However, the analysis also showed that the substructure of the four main areas of the profile did not fully match the results of the factor analysis, suggesting that the distribution of competencies in the competency profile could be reconsidered, especially in the area of Research Practice. The most recent developments in the field of research integrity also suggest that the competency profile should be updated with issues regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on research integrity.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Student-Centred Approaches in Higher Education from the Student Perspective Perceived Change in Job Demands and Resources and Teacher Well-Being during the Pandemic Digital-inclusive Transformation and Teacher Preparedness for Foreign Language Education – A Bilateral German-Norwegian Perspective Supporting Preservice Teachers’ Civic Competence as a Strategy for Internationalisation in the Digital Era Promoting Interaction to Enhance Student Perceived Learning and Satisfaction in a Large e-Flipped Accounting Classroom
×
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