First of all a frank acknowledgement by the AHRECS team – In the past we’ve merrily used invented applications/vignettes, sometimes with deliberately inserted defects, and de-identified real proposals (with permission) in the professional development activities we’ve facilitated. We did so as a way to help research ethics reviewers and researchers (but reviewers made up the overwhelming majority of these workshops) to spot mistakes and in doing so demonstrating they understood an ethical principle or a specific provision of a statement/code/policy. At the time we might even have congratulated ourselves on providing a real world practical activity rather than merely telling attendees what they should do.
.
A couple of years ago each of us drew the same conclusion and were horrified – The use of ‘can you find the hidden flaw’ exercises was part of the reason for the adversarial climate between researcher and research ethics reviewers. They reinforce the message that the job of a research ethics review body is to find what’s wrong with a project, that members are being effective if they find something other members may have missed and that they should expect to find ethical defects: that is, an (unwarranted) assumption that participants need to be protected from researchers.
.
As Jim notes, examples can be used positively in professional development activities for research ethics reviewers and researchers. Such activities can be used as a way to focus on congratulating researchers for novel or elegant solutions to ethics challenges, on facilitating rather than policing research, and how to achieve best practice in review feedback.
.
Such examples should be used in all our professional development strategies.
The use of defective examples is dead. Long like the use of positive examples.
Training sessions for new ethics committee members and new researchers frequently use a completed application as a fully-worked example of how to practically implement legislation, codes, and administrative processes. There is now a solid body of scientific findings that can guide the effective use of worked examples in promoting learning and its generalisation to new situations.1 Based on these findings, here are three evidence-based hints:
.
(1) Walk trainees through at least two completed ethics applications for related projects. According to the available research, a single example will most likely cause new committee members to see it as an ideal exemplar that all applications must conform to. Similarly, new researchers will tend to see a single example as an ideal template. They may try to squeeze all their information into that template even if it metaphorically means pounding square pegs into round holes. Enabling trainees to study, compare, and contrast two or worked examples dramatically increases understanding of the underlying principles and, more importantly, the ability to see analogies between the examples and new applications.2
.
(2) The initial worked examples should be correct, particularly for new members and researchers who are not yet familiar with the legislation, codes, and administrative processes. As familiarity increases, test cases with deficiencies can then be introduced for study and facilitated discussion.
.
(3) The projects described in initial examples should be relatively simple while still being authentic. Then, as understanding and skill increases, more complex worked examples and test cases can be introduced.4
.
Given that the time allocated to a training session may be limited to a few hours, readers may wonder how they are going to find the time for extensively using examples while still covering the principles in the legislation, codes, and administrative procedures. One way to free up time and promote a better linkage of the principles to ethics applications is to convert a lecture-based “just-in-case” approach to learning to an experiential, trainee-centred, “just-in-time” mode. This conversion can be accomplished by providing a short (5-10 min) introduction that orients the audience to the main points to be covered. Then, the principles can be brought out in facilitated discussions at relevant points during walk-throughs of the examples and test cases.
.
- Renkl A: Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science 2014;38(1):1-37.
- Gentner D, Holyoak KJ: Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction. American Psychologist 1997;52:32-4.
- Stark R, Kopp V, Fischer MR: Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: Two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learning and Instruction 2011;21(1):22-33.
- Paas F, Van Merrienboer J, Van Gog T. Designing instruction for the contemporary learning landscape. In: Harris IKR, Graham S, Urdan T, editors. APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol 3 Application to Learning and Teaching Washington: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. pp. 335-57.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=edupapers
.
Disclosure of interests
I have no conflict of interest
Contributor
James Kehoe, PhD FRSN
Jim is a Professor of Psychology, UNSW, where his 49-year research career has spanned many areas of learning, memory, and training. He has served as chair of the Animal Care and Ethics Committee and convener of the Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel (Behavioural Sciences)
Jim’s UNSW staff profile | ejameskehoe@gmail.com
This post may be cited as:
Kehoe J. (26 March 2018) Hints for Using Worked Examples in Training Sessions. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/hints-for-using-worked-examples-in-training-sessions
