Taiwanese and American Graduate Students’ Misconceptions Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research: A Cross-National Comparison Using a Two-Tier Test Approach

Pan, Sophia Jui-An

doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00297-7

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…R 2 = 0.212 for the model of predictors of analysis and reporting QRPs; Adj. R 2 = 0.016 for the model of predictors of design QRPs; R 2 = 0.185 for the mediation model for analysis and reporting QRPs; R 2 = 0.069 for the mediation model for design QRPssingle time-point self-report questionnaire studyGermany16Lin [51] n = 58university undergraduate studentsnot applicablequalitative research (online survey and two focus groups).USA17Marwick et al [52] n = 16 in the class;university undergraduate studentsnot applicablequalitative research (replication assignments for an archeology class and feedback survey).USA n = 13 in the evaluation18Marshall & Underwood [53]not applicableuniversity undergraduate studentsnot applicabledescription of an empirical research project as a component of an upper-level undergraduate economics writing-in-the-discipline courseUSA19McCright [54]experimental group ( n = 27)undergraduate studentsnot applicablequasi-experimental study about inquiry-based learning projectUSAcontrol ( n = 130)20Pan [55] n = 518graduate studentsη2 from 0.02 to 0.13 on difference between Taiwanese and American students understanding of responsible conduct of researchonline survey using diagnostic assessment, the Revises RCR [responsible conduct of research] Reasoning TestTaiwan and USA21Paviotti et al [56] n = 24 studentsstudents and staffnot applicablemixed-methods evaluation, using questionnaires and interviewsItaly n = 5 staff22Poronnik & Moni [57] n = 230final-year physiology students…”

Section: Literature Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“… USA 17 Marwick et al [ 52 ] n = 16 in the class; university undergraduate students not applicable qualitative research (replication assignments for an archeology class and feedback survey). USA n = 13 in the evaluation 18 Marshall & Underwood [ 53 ] not applicable university undergraduate students not applicable description of an empirical research project as a component of an upper-level undergraduate economics writing-in-the-discipline course USA 19 McCright [ 54 ] experimental group ( n = 27) undergraduate students not applicable quasi-experimental study about inquiry-based learning project USA control ( n = 130) 20 Pan [ 55 ] n = 518 graduate students η2 from 0.02 to 0.13 on difference between Taiwanese and American students understanding of responsible conduct of research online survey using diagnostic assessment, the Revises RCR [responsible conduct of research] Reasoning Test Taiwan and USA 21 Paviotti et al [ 56 ] n = 24 students students and staff not applicable mixed-methods evaluation, using questionnaires and interviews Italy n = 5 staff 22 Poronnik & Moni [ 57 ] ...…”

Section: Literature Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is clearly a need for targeted efforts to improve graduate students' assessment of scientific quality. For example, Pan [ 55 ] explored graduate students (mis)perceptions about responsible conduct of research. Graduate students in this study ( n = 518 across Taiwan and the USA) were given a test which measures students’ justification of ethics and research responsibility.…”

Section: Open and Reproducible Scholarship And Students' Attitudes To...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

show abstract