Transcript Slide 1
Research Ethics in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
presented by R . Steven Turner, Chair UNBF Research Ethics Board ( [email protected]
) Renee Audet-Martel, REB Coordinator ( [email protected]
)
• • • •
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
“scholarly inquiry into post-secondary student learning, which advances the practice of teaching by making research findings public”
Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Interest in SoTL varies across the University The challenge to REBs: dealing with SoTL researchers unfamiliar with research ethics
• • • •
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
Reinvigorating the teaching imperative of the modern university From the private classroom to “making teaching community property” REB requirements as an imposition of the research university Sensitivity to students brings sensitivity to research ethics
• • • •
The Ethics of SoTL: A few sources
Denise Stockley and Laura-Lee Balkwill, “Raising Awareness of Research Ethics in SoTL: The Role of Education Developers,” CJSoTL 4.1 (2013) Mark MacLean and Gary Poole, “An Introduction to Ethical Considerations for Novices to Research in Teaching and Learning in Canada,” CJSoTL 1.2 (2010) Pat Hutchings, “Competing Goods: Ethical Issues in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” Change (September/October, 2003), 27-33.
Wendy Burgess, “Scope of Research Ethics Review”, PRE Webinar, December 1, 2011
• • •
“Do all classroom-based investigations into teaching and learning and how to do them better require REB review and approval?”
No, because according to the TCPS2: – “Quality assurance and quality improvement studies, program evaluation activities, and performance reviews, or testing within normal education requirements when used exclusively for assessment, management or improvement purposes, do not constitute research for the purposes of this Policy, and o not fall within the scope of REB review.” Non-REB-reviewable research may still pose ethical questions But some research into the SoTL clearly is reviewable; where do we make the determination?
So what does qualify as ‘research’ under the TCPS2, and so becomes REB-reviewable?”
• • TCPS2, 1.A: Research is “an undertaking intended to extend knowledge through a disciplined inquiry or systematic investigation.” Pending amendment: “Disciplined inquiry” means “an inquiry that is conducted with the expectation that the method, results, and conclusions will be able to withstand the scrutiny of the relevant research community”
“So given this vague definition of ‘research,’ how does the local REB decide whether an inquiry into teaching and learning is reviewable research?”
• • • • What is the purpose of the investigation?
Used in one’s own department and faculty, or communicated in publications, internet fora, conferences, or workshops?
Are the results claimed to be applicable across a whole field or discipline?
Is the main purpose local program evaluation and development (no matter how widely disseminated)?
Applying the Criteria: Case One
Faculty X has observed that some of its first-year students come in lacking the skills in literacy and numeracy to do university-level work. To help them, it has set up an experimental remedial course, call it University 101, which will help provide these selected students with the basic skills they need to keep up with their classmates. To see how well the course is working, the Faculty intends to conduct special course evaluations, as well as focus group discussions, with students in the course late in the year, and also they intend to carry out a statistical analysis of the students' high school marks, and their marks in first- and second-year of University, to determine if the remedial course is helping and how it can be improved.
“So other than the obvious, what does it matter if my project is deemed research, or not?”
• • • If “research,” then you must seek REB review and approval.
If “research,” then you must seek consent of your participants and allow them the option of not participating with no consequences If “not research” then you may have greater latitude in requiring class participation
“So if I’m in doubt about whether my project constitutes reviewable research, what should I do?”
• • • • Ask the chair of the REB If in doubt, submit to the REB. You may wish to treat the results as research in the future Retroactive evaluation and approval may require hunting down participants for consent Journals and conferences may refuse submissions not REB-reviewed
Applying the Criteria: Case Two
Professor X is very interested in learning styles. In one of her courses she routinely teaches about learning styles, and requires her students to complete questionnaires and instruments to determine their own learning styles (although she does not require students to reveal their learning styles). She has also published on the topic. One year she develops a project to see how learning styles correlate with other personality traits. She invites her students in her class to complete a battery of personality inventories, as well as the learning style inventory, and to allow her to access the results. She will then discuss the results in class (without revealing any particular student's name), and she proposes to present the findings jointly at a SoTL conference.
• • •
“So I’m going to have my project reviewed by the REB. What are they going to look for, and what criteria do I have to satisfy?”
Obtain students’ consent to participate (but consent may not always mean signed consent) Ensure consent is informed. (Describe your project, make your guarantees of confidentiality clear, provide an information letter.) Ensure consent is voluntary. Design the research so the results cannot influence evaluations, so as to impose no “social penalty,” and so evaluators will not know who is participating and who not.
“So are there particular red flags the REB looks for in evaluating STL projects?”
• • • • Take care with images, direct quotations, specimens of work, identifying information other than names Be sensitive to private embarrassment from illustrations of inadequate work Activities or exercises notably different from what would normally go on in a course like yours Collecting or accessing personal information substantially beyond what is normally available to course instructors
Encourage the best in SoTL Research:
Treat students as partners, as well as subjects, in the planning and carrying out of SoTL projects.
Applying the Criteria: Case Three
Professor Y typically engages in critical pedagogical methods that force students to confront controversial social issues; her classes on Social Inequality in Canadian Society are typically marked by intense debate and sometimes confrontation. One year, after the course has been concluded, she and four of the twenty students who completed the course decide to write a paper for publication describing the way in which learning and personal change emerged from the passionate exchanges that occurred during class. They intend to contact their classmates and obtain their consent to use statements made by them during class discussion and expressed in position papers written for class. Only pseudonyms will be used in the publication.
Applying the Criteria: Case Four
Professor Z is very interested in Autism Spectrum Disorder and how individuals with mild ASD diagnoses cope when they attempt university. He wants to find out how much university professors at the University of New Brunswick know about ASD, how sensitive they are to the condition, and how informed they are about techniques for helping help high performing ASD individuals learn. He devises an online questionnaire that can be accessed by UNB faculty members and proceeds to recruit participants by means of email, advertisements, and appearances at Faculty Council meetings. His aim is to produce a report for the UNB Counselling Centre and the UNB Teaching and Learning Centre, which will be distributed to all faculty along with information on how to deal with ASD in the classroom.