Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Use and Abuse of The Internet For Teaching Researc PDF
Use and Abuse of The Internet For Teaching Researc PDF
net/publication/7574780
Use and abuse of the Internet for teaching research ethics - Commentary on
"Misconceptions and realities about teaching online"
CITATIONS READS
6 86
1 author:
Michael W Kalichman
University of California, San Diego
89 PUBLICATIONS 1,403 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael W Kalichman on 17 May 2014.
Michael Kalichman
Director, Research Ethics Program, University of California, San Diego, USA
A role for the Internet in delivering instruction in research ethics is neither clear nor
certain. As discussed by Joan Sieber,1 teaching online is occurring more frequently, but
that is no guarantee that such programs are the best use of time for either the instructors
or the students. For those who teach research ethics (or the responsible conduct of
research [RCR]), the allure of Internet-based instruction is particularly potent. Students
for such courses are almost invariably adults (graduate students, medical students,
postdoctoral researchers, research staff, and faculty); many of those in biomedical
research also have clinical responsibilities, and all are extraordinarily busy. The
possibility that an obligation to teach research ethics can be met without the necessity
for regularly attending course meetings is attractive to teachers, administrators, and
students. However, just because it can be done, does not mean either that it is
necessarily of value or that it should be done. To assess the effectiveness of online
instruction, it is essential to identify the possible goals of research ethics education,
then to identify the aspects of online education that might promote those goals.
Goals
If all goes well, an instructor will have a positive impact on the future behavior of
students. However, for many reasons, long-term changes in behavior tend to be
relegated to the category of desirable outcomes that are not readily measured. Instead,
the immediate purposes of educational experiences can be broadly divided into three
main outcomes: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The distinctions in the field of ethics
Address for correspondence: Michael Kalichman, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Pathology, Director,
Research Ethics Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0612, USA;
Email: kalichman@ucsd.edu.
Acknowledgements: Dr. Lawrence Hinman (University of San Diego) is thanked for reading this
manuscript and helpful comments. The author is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health
(K01 AI01591).
1353-3452 © 2005 Opragen Publications, POB 54, Guildford GU1 2YF, UK. http://www.opragen.co.uk
are readily apparent. Ethical conduct depends first on information. Knowledge and
awareness of rules, standards, and resources are essential foundations and, therefore,
appropriate outcomes for effective ethics education. Similarly, the skill to make
defensible ethical decisions depends on practice in carrying out the process of ethical
decision-making. Finally, it is not enough to have knowledge and to know how to use
it; it is necessary to also have a positive disposition or attitude towards ethical conduct.
While the successful inculcation of knowledge, skills, and attitudes is not a
guarantee of ethical behavior, it is a necessary prerequisite. Assuming ethical behavior
is a desirable outcome, it is worth considering the extent to which Internet-based
instruction might have a role in promoting responsible conduct of research through
improvements in knowledge, skills, or attitudes.
Skills. The value of the Internet for teaching a skill, such as ethical decision-making, is
not as certain as for information delivery. Moreover, conveying information about the
process of ethical decision-making is not the same as teaching the skill of effective
decision-making. A student might learn a great deal about the elements and advantages
of good decision-making, but as with other skills, people tend to learn by doing.
Without actively engaging students in the process of analysis and reasoning, it is
unlikely that they will undergo significant improvement in their own decision-making
skills. In a classroom setting, it is easy and common to practice ethical reasoning skills.
This is accomplished both when students verbalize their own analyses and when they
hear others do the same. With the Internet, a student can be challenged with a tough
ethical case, but this is likely to do little to promote ethical reasoning if there is no
requirement for interacting with an instructor or other students. On the other hand, it is
plausible that skills for ethical reasoning can be fostered through the written medium of
Internet discussion forums (e.g., email, discussion boards, chat rooms). Although
Internet discussions are different from those that occur in the “in person” setting of a
classroom, the two main goals of “speaking” (expressing oneself) and “listening” (or
attending to the ideas of others) are both possible.
Although the Internet can be used badly, it provides elements with great potential value
for instruction in research ethics: delivery of information, promotion of discussion, and
assessment of outcomes. Information delivery on the Web is generally similar to print
media. The quantity of information can be large or small, the presentation can be spare
or elaborate, and the writing can be clear or obtuse. However, the Web also has
distinctive limitations and advantages. The most obvious limitation is the way in which
the Web is likely to be used. For many reasons, some cultural and some practical, it is
best to assume that users will not take the time or care to read large quantities of text.
While a long and dense textbook might be accessed in bits and pieces over time, a
similar presentation on the Web is more likely to go completely unread. The content of
Web pages will ideally focus on essential information, rather than risk dilution and loss
of the central message.
Discussion. If the Web is used only for information delivery, it can be the equivalent of
merely reading lecture notes to a class of students. At the very least, effective writing,
graphics, thoughtful questions, and engaging design of Web pages can help make
information more accessible. However, it is now widely recognized that active learning
is essential to achieve many educational goals. In the case of research ethics, this
means that students are engaged in discussion about contrived or real cases,
challenging thought questions, relevant fictional or non-fictional selections from print
or video, or surveys about topics in research ethics. With appropriate guidelines and
monitoring of such discussion, the result can be an active learning experience that will
reinforce the learning of information, develop improved skills for ethical reasoning,
and foster a positive attitude toward research ethics.
enough to simply know that the users/students have accessed the relevant Web page(s)
or reported that they have done so. However, if it is necessary to also assess whether
the basic information has been learned, this can be accomplished through automated
delivery of multiple choice questions. A well-designed system of information delivery,
assessment, and tracking of completion can run independently without the ongoing
need for an instructor. Such systems can certainly work, and are widely used, but they
are associated with a number of shortcomings. Some kinds of information may not
easily be covered with multiple choice questions; such an assessment would not be
ideal for changes in decision-making skills or attitudes; and if this is the only method
of teaching research ethics, it is likely to support the view that the topic is of little
significance. On the other hand, if the goal is to change skills or attitude, then as a
minimum it may be enough to simply ensure that the process of active learning takes
place. In other words, the assessment would simply be the verification that students had
completed the requirement to discuss assigned material with other students and
prepared written summaries of their deliberations. Still better, if time permits, the
assessment could be further formalized by feedback from the course instructor on each
of the submitted assignments.
Recommendations
REFERENCES
1. Sieber, Joan E. (2005) Misconceptions and Realities about Teaching Online, Science and
Engineering Ethics 11 (3): 329-340.
Table I. Uses of Internet with and without an instructor and for single or multiple
student participants.
NO INSTRUCTOR INSTRUCTOR
Table II. Uses of the Internet to meet the goals of increases in knowledge, skills, and
attitudes.