skip to main content
10.1145/3411763.3451722acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Improving Undergraduate Attitudes Towards Responsible Conduct of Research Through an Interactive Storytelling Game

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is an essential skill for all researchers to develop, but training scientists to behave ethically is complex because it requires addressing both cognitive (i.e., conceptual knowledge and moral reasoning skills) and socio-affective (i.e., attitudes) learning outcomes. Currently, both classroom- and web-based forms of RCR training struggle to address these distinct types of learning outcomes simultaneously. In this paper, we present a study providing initial evidence that playing a single brief session of  Academical, a choice-based interactive narrative game, can significantly improve players’ attitudes about RCR. We further demonstrate the relationship between engagement with the game and resulting attitudes. Combined with our previous work showing  Academical’s advantages over traditional RCR training for teaching cognitive learning outcomes, this study’s results highlight that utilizing a choice-based interactive story game is a uniquely effective way to holistically address RCR learning outcomes that drive ethical research behavior.

References

  1. Saleem Elias Alhabash and Kevin Wise. 2012. PeaceMaker: Changing students’ attitudes toward Palestinians and Israelis through video game play. International Journal of Communication 6 (2012), 25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Melissa S Anderson, Aaron S Horn, Kelly R Risbey, Emily A Ronning, Raymond De Vries, and Brian C Martinson. 2007. What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine 82, 9 (2007), 853–860.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Alison L Antes and James M DuBois. 2014. Aligning objectives and assessment in responsible conduct of research instruction. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 15, 2 (2014), 108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Alison L Antes, Stephen T Murphy, Ethan P Waples, Michael D Mumford, Ryan P Brown, Shane Connelly, and Lynn D Devenport. 2009. A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior 19, 5 (2009), 379–402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Alison L Antes, Xiaoqian Wang, Michael D Mumford, Ryan P Brown, Shane Connelly, and Lynn D Devenport. 2010. Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 85, 3(2010), 519.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sarah A Aynsely, Kusum Nathawat, and Ruseell M Crawford. 2018. Evaluating student perceptions of using a game-based approach to aid learning: Braincept. Higher Education Pedagogies 3 (2018), 478–489. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Haiyan Bai, Wei Pan, Astusi Hirumi, and Mansureh Kebritchi. 2012. Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-D instructional game on improving mathematics achievement and motivation of middle school students. British Journal of Educational Technology 43, 6 (2012), 993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01269.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Muriel J Bebeau. 1993. Designing an Outcome-based Ethics Curriculum for Professional Education: strategies and evidence of effectiveness. Journal of moral education 22, 3 (1993), 313–326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Max V Birk, Cheralyn Atkins, Jason T Bowey, and Regan L Mandryk. 2016. Fostering intrinsic motivation through avatar identification in digital games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2982–2995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kurt Braddock and James Price Dillard. 2016. Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs 83, 4 (2016), 446–467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Bradley J Brummel, CK Gunsalus, Kerri L Anderson, and Michael C Loui. 2010. Development of role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 16, 3 (2010), 573–589.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Douglas B Clark, Emily E Tanner-Smith, and Stephen S Killingsworth. 2016. Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of educational research 86, 1 (2016), 79–122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jacob Cohen. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Christine P Dancey and John Reidy. 2007. Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sara De Freitas. 2006. Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennifer Edson Escalas. 2004. Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of advertising 33, 2 (2004), 37–48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Deniz Eseryel, Victor Law, Dirk Ifenthaler, Xun Gel, and Raymond Miller. 2014. An Investigation of the Interrelationships between Motivation, Engagement, and Complex Problem Solving in Game-based Learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 17 (2014), 42–53. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Celia B Fisher, Adam L Fried, and Lindsay G Feldman. 2009. Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics & Behavior 19, 6 (2009), 496–518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Varvara Garneli, Michail Giannakos, and Konstantinos Chorianopoulos. 2017. Serious games as a malleable learning medium: The effects of narrative, gameplay, and making on students’ performance and attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology 48, 3 (2017), 842–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12455Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Andreas Gegenfurtner, Koen Veermans, Dagmar Festner, and Hans Gruber. 2009. Integrative literature review: Motivation to transfer training: An integrative literature review. Human resource development review 8, 3 (2009), 403–423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Melanie C Green and Keenan M Jenkins. 2014. Interactive narratives: Processes and outcomes in user-directed stories. Journal of Communication 64, 3 (2014), 479–500.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Melanie C Green and Keenan M Jenkins. 2020. Need for Cognition, Transportability, and Engagement with Interactive Narratives. Games for health journal 9, 3 (2020), 182–186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthew Grizzard, Ron Tamborini, Robert J Lewis, Lu Wang, and Sujay Prabhu. 2014. Being bad in a video game can make us morally sensitive. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 17, 8(2014), 499–504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Hussein Haruna, Xiao Hu, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, Robin R Mellecker, Goodluck Gabriel, and Patrick Siril Ndekao. 2018. Improving Sexual Health Education Programs for Adolescent Students through Game-Based Learning and Gamification. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15092027Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Gwo-Jen Hwang, Po-Han Wu, and Chi-Chang Chen. 2012. An online game approach for improving students’learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Journal of Educational Computing Research 59 (2012), 1246–1256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Michael Kalichman. 2013. A Brief History of RCR Education. Account Res 20, 5-6 (Jan. 2013), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822260Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Michael Kalichman. 2014. Rescuing responsible conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in research 21, 1 (2014), 68–83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Michael W Kalichman and Dena K Plemmons. 2007. Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine 82, 9 (2007), 846–852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Michael W Kalichman and Dena K Plemmons. 2015. Research agenda: The effects of responsible-conduct-of-research training on attitudes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10, 5(2015), 457–459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Fengfeng Ke. 2008. Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: cognitive, metacognitive,and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development 56 (2008), 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Greg Kearsley and Ben Shneiderman. 1998. Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational technology 38, 5 (1998), 20–23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthew Lombard, Theresa B Ditton, and Lisa Weinstein. 2009. Measuring presence: the temple presence inventory. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international workshop on presence. 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Matthew Lombard, Lisa Weinstein, and Theresa Ditton. 2011. Measuring telepresence: The validity of the Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) in a gaming context. In ISPR 2011: The International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference. Edinburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Rocio Lorenzo-Alvarez, Teodoro Rudolphi-Solero, Miguel J Ruiz-Gomez, and Francisco Sendra-Portero. 2020. Game-based Learning in Virtual Worlds: A Multiuser Online Game for Medical Undergraduate Radiology Education within Second Life. Anatomical Sciences Education 13 (2020), 602–617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Mia Liza A Lustria. 2007. Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 6 (2007), 766–776.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Rosa Mikeal Martey, Kate Kenski, James Folkestad, Laurie Feldman, Elana Gordis, Adrienne Shaw, Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Ben Clegg, Hui Zhang, Nissim Kaufman, 2014. Measuring game engagement: multiple methods and construct complexity. Simulation & Gaming 45, 4-5 (2014), 528–547.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jennifer McCafferty, Reid Cushman, Kenneth W Goodman, Paul Braunschweiger, and Robin N Fiore. 2012. New NSF And NIH Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Guidelines: A Three-Phase Plan. Teaching Ethics 12, 2 (2012), 23–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Edward F Melcer, Katelyn M Grasse, James Ryan, Nick Junius, Max Kreminski, Dietrich Squinkifer, Brent Hill, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2020. Getting Academical: A Choice-Based Interactive Storytelling Game for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games-FDG.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Edward F Melcer, James Ryan, Nick Junius, Max Kreminski, Dietrich Squinkifer, Brent Hill, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2020. Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research Through an Interactive Storytelling Game. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Engineering National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, 2017. Fostering integrity in research. National Academies Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Raymond A Noe. 1986. Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of management review 11, 4 (1986), 736–749.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Heather L O’Brien and Elaine G Toms. 2008. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology 59, 6 (2008), 938–955.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Scott Parrott, Francesca R Dillman Carpentier, and C Temple Northup. 2017. A test of interactive narrative as a tool against prejudice. Howard Journal of Communications 28, 4 (2017), 374–389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Dena K Plemmons, Suzanne A Brody, and Michael W Kalichman. 2006. Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and engineering ethics 12, 3 (2006), 571–582.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sean T Powell, Matthew A Allison, and Michael W Kalichman. 2007. Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: A preliminary study. Science and engineering ethics 13, 2 (2007), 249–264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Deepa Rao and Ieva Stupans. 2012. Exploring the potential of role play in higher education: development of a typology and teacher guidelines. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 49, 4(2012), 427–436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Lesley M Roberts, Connie Wiskin, and Andrea Roalfe. 2008. Effects of exposure to mental illness in role-play on undergraduate student attitudes. Family medicine 40, 7 (2008), 477.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Jonathan P Rowe, Lucy R Shores, Bradford W Mott, and James C Lester. 2010. Integrating learning and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 166–177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Jennifer L Sabourin and James C Lester. 2013. Affect and engagement in Game-Based Learning environments. IEEE transactions on affective computing 5, 1 (2013), 45–56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Karen B Schmaling and Arthur W Blume. 2009. Ethics instruction increases graduate students’ responsible conduct of research knowledge but not moral reasoning. Accountability in Research 16, 5 (2009), 268–283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Karen Schrier. 2015. EPIC: A framework for using video games in ethics education. Journal of Moral Education 44, 4 (2015), 393–424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Karen Schrier. 2015. Ethical thinking and sustainability in role-play participants: A preliminary study. Simulation & Gaming 46, 6 (2015), 673–696.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Stephanie N Seiler, Bradley J Brummel, Kerri L Anderson, Kyoung Jin Kim, Serena Wee, CK Gunsalus, and Michael C Loui. 2011. Outcomes assessment of role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research. Accountability in Research 18, 4 (2011), 217–246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Eric P Skye, Heather Wagenschutz, Jeffrey A Steiger, and Arno K Kumagai. 2014. Use of interactive theater and role play to develop medical students’ skills in breaking bad news. Journal of Cancer Education 29, 4 (2014), 704–708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Hiller A Spires, Jonathan P Rowe, Bradford W Mott, and James C Lester. 2011. Problem Solving and Game-based Learning: Effects of Middle Grade Students’ Hypothesis Testing Strategies on Learning Outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research 44 (2011), 453–472. Issue 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Sharon T Steinemann, Glena H Iten, Klaus Opwis, Seamus F Forde, Lars Frasseck, and Elisa D Mekler. 2017. Interactive narratives affecting social change. Journal of Media Psychology(2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Sujit Subhash and Elizabeth A Cudney. 2018. Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior 87 (2018), 192–206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Ross Taplin, Abhijeet Singh, Rosemary Kerr, and Alina Lee. 2018. The use of short role-plays for an ethics intervention in university auditing courses. Accounting Education 27, 4 (2018), 383–402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. L Vuckovic-Dekic, D Gavrilovic, I Kezic, G Bogdanovic, and S Brkic. 2012. Science ethics education part II: changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among medical researchers after a short course in science ethics. J BUON 17, 2 (2012), 391–5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Connie Wiskin, Lesley Roberts, and Andrea Roalfe. 2011. The impact of discussing a sexual history in role-play simulation teaching on pre-clinical student attitudes towards people who submit for STI testing. Medical Teacher 33, 6 (2011), e324–e332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Jui-Mei Yien, Chun-Ming Hung, Gwo-Jen Hwang, and Yueh-Chiao Lin. 2011. A Game-based Learning Approach to Improving Students’ Learning Achievements in A Nutrition Course. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10 (2011). Issue 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Amitai Ziv, Paul Root Wolpe, Stephen D Small, and Shimon Glick. 2003. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Academic medicine 78, 8 (2003), 783–788.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Improving Undergraduate Attitudes Towards Responsible Conduct of Research Through an Interactive Storytelling Game
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format