A tale of two formats: Graduate students’ perceptions and preferences of interactivity in Responsible conduct of research education

Chien Chou*, Huei Chuan Wei

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: The significance of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education in higher education is well-acknowledged. However, the lack of interactivity in online RCR courses remains a concern for course designers and instructors. This research aims to identify types of interactivity embedded in RCR courses and examine graduate students’ perceived interactivity in different course formats (online versus face-to-face) by two distinct samples. Methods/Materials: Study one, involving 191 participants, identified the model construct of the Learner Perceptions of Interactivity Scale for RCR. The result indicated a 15-item scale characterized by three factors: self-control, human-interaction, and information-access. Study two, involving a sample of 390 individuals who received both formats of RCR instruction, confirmed the instrument’s reliability and explored students’ perceptions of interactivity types within the two formats. Results: Notably, students in Study 2 perceived a higher degree of human interaction in the face-to-face format while attributing more significance to self-control and information access in the online course. Approximately 80% of the students expressed a preference for a fully online course if given another opportunity to choose or recommend a format. This preference was attributed to their inclination toward more control and access, underscoring the significance of these elements in shaping their learning experiences.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAccountability in Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2024

Keywords

  • interactive features
  • Interactivity
  • perception
  • preference
  • Responsible conduct of research (RCR)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A tale of two formats: Graduate students’ perceptions and preferences of interactivity in Responsible conduct of research education'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this