Linda Zollitsch

Background This article provides an analysis of the pedagogical underpinnings that characterise the research integrity (RI) training approaches and materials developed by four European Union - funded projects. The approaches taken by these projects include a dialogical approach, an empowerment approach, a virtue ethics approach, and a constructivist case-based approach. We analysed the materials/trainings created in the projects. In doing so, we propose how to make use of a structured way of working with learning objectives, in order to ensure that research integrity training meets the needs of its target groups. Methods We applied qualitative, deductive content analysis in which we analysed the learning objectives stated in the training schemes of the four projects. A total of 46 learning objectives were analysed using three learning taxonomies, namely the revised Bloom's Taxonomy, the SOLO Taxonomy, and the Taxonomy of Significant Learning. Results The results show that the four RI trainings make use of either a constructivist or a socio-constructivist understanding of learning, implement activating and engaging learning activities, and emphasise high-order learning objectives. Conclusions The analysis suggests that taxonomies are applicable to various pedagogical underpinnings and can help trainers to communicate the objectives of training and learners to relate their expectations to the objectives. We identify implications for training design and suggest recommendations for training developers. It is advisable to pay attention to learning objectives dedicated to foster the higher levels of learning and understanding. Less commonly applied taxonomies in the context of integrity training, such as the Taxonomy of Significant Learning can help to identify relevant learning objectives both for trainers as well as learners. Research cultures and disciplinary differences are generally not spelled out at the level of learning objectives highlighting the need to consider these explicitly in training implementation.

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.

Although higher education institutions across Europe and beyond are paying more and more attention to research integrity (RI) and responsible conduct of research (RCR) training, there are few studies and little evidence on what works and what does not work in these training sessions. One way to overcome this challenge is to evaluate such training with standardised instruments. Experts and trainers have used qualitative approaches to evaluate their training's successes, but it is difficult to compare their results with others. Sometimes they conduct standardised tests drawn from ethics education or other related fields, but these tests do not assess core themes of research integrity as outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ( ECoC, 2017). At present, there is a lack of available standardised instruments designed to specifically evaluate success in this training. This article presents a pre-validated instrument for this purpose. The P2I questionnaire is a four-tier test based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. In it, testees choose a practice in line with research integrity to address an issue, justify their choice, and describe how confident they are with their answers. The development of the P2I questionnaire is outlined in three steps. First we describe the status quo and gaps in evaluating training successes, then we illustrate how we designed the P2I questionnaire using practices and justifications in line (and not in line) with research integrity. In the third step, this P2I questionnaire is pre-validated and revised. This questionnaire is a first attempt to engage in a discourse on standardised research integrity instruments and is one step towards an evidence-based improvement of training sessions.

Although higher education institutions across Europe and beyond are paying more and more attention to research integrity training, there are few studies and little evidence on what works and what does not work in such training. One way to overcome this challenge is to evaluate such training with standardised instruments. Experts/trainers have used qualitative approaches to evaluate their research integrity training's successes, but it is difficult to compare their results with others. Sometimes they conduct standardised tests drawn from ethics education or other related fields, but these tests do not assess research integrity's core themes. At present, there is a lack of standardised instruments designed to specifically evaluate success in research integrity training. This article presents a pre-validated instrument for this purpose. Named the P2I questionnaire, it is designed as a four-tier test and based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity; in it, testees choose a (scientific) practice to address an issue, justify their decision, and describe how confident they are with their decisions. The development of the P2I questionnaire is outlined in three steps. After describing the research integrity (alternatively, the responsible conduct of research) training successes, the article notes scientific and non-scientific patterns and then concludes with a pre-validated and revised version of the P2I questionnaire. This questionnaire is intended as a first step in a discourse on standardised research integrity measurements and is one step towards an evidence-based improvement of research integrity training.