teaching responsible conduct of research at the universiti malaysia...
TRANSCRIPT
Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
NAJI A. [email protected]
CONTENT
• Implementation of RCR at UTMFirst Talk (30 Oct 2013): a 2.5 hours session in a postgraduate seminar jointly organized by three institutions of UTMSecond Talk (13 Dec 2013): a full day departmental seminar sponsored by the Faculty of Science UTM.
• Implementation of Active Learning in class
FIRST TALK
WHAT HAVE WE DONE SO FAR ON RCR AT UTM?
Events Organizers Learning Objectives
Seminar on how to prepare first assessment proposal
Title:Scientific Misconducts
Date: 30 Oct 201310.00 am-12.30 pm
Participants: 3rd semester PG(30) Lecturers (5)
i) Ibnu Sina Institute for Fundamental Science Studies (UTM)
ii) School of Graduate Studies (UTM)
iii) Postgraduate Student Society Faculty of Science (UTM)
Students should be able toexplain the following concepts:
1. Scientific integrity and itssubdivisions
2. Scientific misconducta) Definitionb) Factors triggering
scientists to commitscientific misconduct
c) Implications forcommitting scientificmisconducts
SECOND TALK
WHAT HAVE WE DONE SO FAR ON RCR AT UTM?
Events Organizer Learning Objectives
Departmental seminar for postgraduates 2013
Title:Scientific Integrity: AnEmphasis on ScientificMisconduct, Ethics, ScientificPublication And Authorship
Date:13 Dec 20139.00 am-3.00 pm
Participants: 1st semester PG(35) Lecturers (7)
i) Chemistry Department Faculty of Science (UTM)
Participants should be able to
1. Define scientific integrity and state its subdivisions.
2. Define scientific misconduct and explain factors triggering scientists to commit scientific misconduct as well as its implications.
3. Explain issues relating to a) Human subjectsb) Animal researchc) scientific publication
and authorship
CERTIFICATE:SEMINAR ON HOW TO PREPARE FIRST
ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL
PROGRAMME POSTER:
DEPARTMENTAL SEMINAR
CERTIFICATE:DEPARTMENTAL
SEMINAR
AUDIENCE (FIRST TALK)
AUDIENCE (SECOND TALK)
7
35
Proportion of participants in departmental seminar for new postgraduates
(13 December 2013)
LecturerPostgraduates
PRE‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
1. State any four topics/issues that are relevant in the context of
scientific integrity
Categories 1 CorrectAnswer
2 Correct Answers
3 Correct Answers
4 Correct Answers
Postgraduates(n=30)
20/30 7/30 3/30 ‐
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ 4/5 ‐ 1/5
POST‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
1. State any four topics/issues that are relevant in the context of
scientific integrity
Categories No answer 1 CorrectAnswer
2 Correct Answers
3 Correct Answers
4 Correct Answers
Postgraduates(n=30)
1/30 ‐ 5/30 20/30 4/30
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5/5
PRE‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
2. Define scientific misconducts
Categories Incorrect Definition
Nearly CorrectDefinition
Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=30)
3/30 27/30
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ 5/5 ‐
POST‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
2. Define scientific misconducts
Categories Incorrect Definition
Nearly CorrectDefinition
Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=30)
1/30 18/30 11/30
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ ‐ 5/5
PRE‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
3. Contrast fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
Categories No Answer Incorrect Answer
Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=30)
1/30 17/30 12/30
Lecturers(n=5)
1/5 4/5
POST‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
3. Contrast fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
Categories Incorrect Answer Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=30)
3/30 27/30
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ 5/5
PRE‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
4. Provide the possible consequences to a researcher who
committed scientific misconducts
Categories Unacceptable Answer Acceptable Answer
Postgraduates(n=30)
2/30 28/30
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ 5/5
POST‐TEST (FIRST TALK)
4. Provide the possible consequences to a researcher whom
committed scientific misconducts
Categories Unacceptable Answer Acceptable Answer
Postgraduates(n=30)
1/30 29/30
Lecturers(n=5)
‐ 5/5
PRE‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
1. State four topics/issues that are relevant in the context of
scientific integrity
Categories No Answer 1 CorrectAnswer
2 Correct Answers
3 Correct Answers
4 Correct Answers
Postgraduates(n=35)
1/35 32/35 2/35 ‐ ‐
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 2/7 5/7 ‐ ‐
POST‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
1. State four topics/issues that are relevant in the context of
scientific integrity
Categories 1 CorrectAnswer
2 Correct Answers
3 Correct Answers
4 Correct Answers
Postgraduates(n=35)
‐ 15/35 14/35 6/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 1/7 5/7 1/7
PRE‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
2. Define scientific misconducts
Categories Incorrect Definition
Nearly CorrectDefinition
Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=35)
2/35 33/35 ‐
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 7/7 ‐
POST‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
2. Define scientific misconducts
Categories Incorrect Definition
Nearly CorrectDefinition
Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=35)
‐ 19/35 16/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 2/7 5/7
PRE‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
3. Contrast fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
Categories Incorrect Answer Correct Answer
Postgraduates(n=35)
22/35 13/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 7/7
POST‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
3. Contrast fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
Categories Incorrect Answer Correct Definition
Postgraduates(n=35)
2/35 33/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 7/7
PRE‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
4. Provide the possible consequences to a researcher whom
committed scientific misconducts
Categories Unacceptable Answer Acceptable Answer
Postgraduates(n=35)
5/35 30/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 7/7
POST‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
4. Provide the possible consequences to a researcher whom
committed scientific misconducts
Categories Unacceptable Answer Acceptable Answer
Postgraduates(n=35)
‐ 35/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 7/7
PRE‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
5. Describe the ‘Three Rs’ approach in animal research
Categories Unacceptable Answer Acceptable Answer
Postgraduates(n=35)
35/35 ‐
Lecturers(n=7)
5/7 2/7
POST‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
5. Describe the ‘Three Rs’ approach in animal research
Categories Unacceptable Answer Acceptable Answer
Postgraduates(n=35)
3/35 32/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 7/7
PRE‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
6. List three items that would not qualify for an authorship
Categories No Answer 1 Correct Item 2 Correct Items
3 Correct Items
Postgraduates(n=35)
5/35 11/35 19/35 ‐
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ 2/7 4/7 1/7
POST‐TEST (SECOND TALK)
6. List three items that would not qualify for an authorship
Categories No Answer 1 Correct Item 2 Correct Items
3 Correct Items
Postgraduates(n=35)
‐ 2/35 28/35 5/35
Lecturers(n=7)
‐ ‐ 3/7 4/7
1. The objectives of the workshop clearly defined (4.75)
2. The objectives are met (4.53)
3. Sufficient time has been allocated for attaining the objectives (3.25)
4. The content is relevant and useful to me (4.75)
5. You would recommend others to join this workshop (5.00)
6. Active participation is encouraged (5.00)
7. The trainer is highly knowledgeable and competent (4.83)
RESPONSE OF PARTICIPANTS ON THE SECOND TALK
(Scale: 1 to 5)
UTM was a technical college (Treacher Technical School) focusing on
engineering (1905).
Recognition as a university in 1975: engineering, architecture and surveying
As it evolves, many other faculty has since been formed e.g. Faculty of Science
and Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering.
UTM has been recently awarded the ‘Research University’ status
It has no human or animal ethical committee yet.
Since the last 5 months, there has been a motion to set up the committee.
UTM AS A UNIQUE EXAMPLE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVE LEARNING IN MY CLASS
DEFINITION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE
• Forensic science is defined by Saferstein (2004) asthe application of science to criminal and civil lawsare enforced by police agencies in a criminal justicesystem.
• Forensic science is an apt term forthe profession of scientists whose work answers questionsfor the court through scientific reports and testimony.
Cited reference:Saferstein, R. (2004). Criminalistics: an introduction to forensic science. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
ACTIVITY
Discuss with your neighbour about the following two questions
below(5 minutes):
Q: Does the definition include forensic pathology and
odontology as parts of forensic science?
Q: Can a forensic scientist draw any conclusion in forensic
pathology?
FUTURE PLAN
A three‐day seminar involving 40 participants will be conducted (7‐9 July
2014)
Topics to be covered include scientific misconduct, human subjects and
animal research, scientific publication and authorship, mentoring,
competing issues as well as collaborative research.
Facilitators: Dr Abhi, Dr Chai, Dr Deming and 1 or 2 from UTM.
There is a need to establish modules for mentoring, competing issues as
well as collaborative research.
The participants will be divided into four groups and in delivering the
content, active learning approach (e.g. group work, role‐play, think‐pair‐
share etc.) will be used.