TY - JOUR
T1 - A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training
T2 - Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses
AU - van den Hoven, Mariëtte
AU - Lindemann, Tom
AU - Zollitsch, Linda
AU - Prieß-Buchheit, Julia
N1 - Funding Information: The European Union has funded this project, Swafs-02-2018, H2020INTEGRITY, Grant Agreement No. 824586, Swafs-27-2017, VIRT2UE, Grant Agreement No. 787580 and SwafS-02-2018, Path2Integrity, Grand Agreement No. 824488. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL, via Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/6/1
Y1 - 2023/6/1
N2 - Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.
AB - Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.
KW - Course design
KW - Evaluation
KW - Kirkpatrick model
KW - Research integrity
KW - Taxonomy
KW - Teaching and learning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85153897617&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x
DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 37097508
SN - 1353-3452
VL - 29
JO - Science and engineering ethics
JF - Science and engineering ethics
IS - 3
M1 - 14
ER -