Next Article in Journal
Pedagogical Translanguaging in Content Areas: Exploring Preservice Teachers’ Lesson Plans for Emergent Bilinguals
Previous Article in Journal
Future Teachers’ Perceptions about Their Preparedness to Teach Science as Inquiry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/educsci14070701
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perceptions of Students of Education Sciences on Research Ethics and (Re)Formation of the University Curriculum

by
Dorin Opriş
Teacher Training Department, Faculty of History, Letters and Educational Sciences, “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia, 510009 Alba Iulia, Romania
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(7), 701; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070701
Submission received: 22 May 2024 / Revised: 21 June 2024 / Accepted: 25 June 2024 / Published: 27 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Education for Sustainable Development and Science Teaching)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The study investigates perceptions of students of education sciences in Romania concerning issues related to research ethics, starting from recent opinions that consider the lack of adequate training in this field as a threat to higher education. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better knowledge of the training stage of which Bachelor, Master and doctorate students are undertaking. Respondents were invited to take part in a survey that included items that asked their opinion on the place of research ethics in the university curriculum, the need for a support person on research ethics issues, the importance of respecting research ethics for involvement in a research project, and the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics. The results show that students’ perception of the importance of research ethics positively changes with the level of studies. Doctoral students appreciate the support of an ethics advisor and significantly value the ethics component of a research project. Compliance with university ethics norms and compliance with research ethics is statistically significant in two of the three analyzed situations. The research shows the need for reconsideration at the institutional level to identify new training pathways in student research ethics.

1. Introduction

The development of ICT in recent decades means that there is increasing interest in conducting research to support scientific development, and the switch to the widespread use of complex data analysis programs has made research projects in universities more and more numerous, and the need for ethical validation of these approaches has become bigger and bigger. Alongside the growing debates concerning university ethics [1,2], the issues associated with research ethics are also analyzed [3]. An increasingly important role in today’s scientific contexts is also played by moral education [4], as well as the supportive relationship between this classical dimension of education and the new dimensions of education sciences, including educational research [5].
Training in academic ethics can significantly support the resolution of professional dilemmas [6] since there is a link between the moral sensitivity of students and their professional competence [7]. Competencies regarding ethics in research in the field of education science [8] lead to an active presence of students and graduates in high-level educational and professional environments. Recent research even speaks of a high-level awareness of the responsibilities and the professional and moral consequences of undertaken scientific endeavors [7].
The current concern for the formation of world-class scientific communities is also conditioned by training in ethics [9] and practices on integrity in research [10]. A main direction currently targeted is the formation of multidisciplinary skills [11], which contribute to the students’ appreciation of the humanities fields, along with those of economics and marketing [12] or interdisciplinary ones in the field of ethics [13], social and health [14], and for highlighting the role of ethical training in professional success [15]. Research data also show that there is a unity between the studied values and ethical behavior in research, as the personal values of students [16] also include traditional cultural resources [17,18]. For this, it is necessary to understand the general principles of academic integrity, in which those on research ethics are also included [19], in the context of highlighting the need for a contextualized formation of ethics norms [20] for taking over and developing scientific knowledge in interdisciplinary contexts [21] while respecting academic ethics [22].
The sensitivity to ethics issues of students is supported by their training to recognize ethics issues and is significantly elaborated by the participation of students in the development of ethics norms [23]. If ethical education is widespread and the impact of didactic strategies for the ethical training of students is studied [24], the way in which these norms are sought to be harnessed in research practice is not sufficiently clarified in the procedures [25], although support is given to students throughout the course of the research [26].
The development of AI [27] tools raises new ethical challenges in university training [28], which calls for new pedagogical tools [29] for researchers and practitioners to continue to make valuable and scientifically valid contributions [30,31]. The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) and e-learning technologies integrated with AI [32] can be used for the development of educational activity in general and for the formation of competences on research ethics in particular [33] are investigated. The issue of academic ethics is considered by recent research to be structurally associated with the correct use of fundamental concepts but also with the use of web platforms [34], as well as promoting the comprehensive use of the internet, with a good knowledge and observance of ethical cyber behavior in academic education programs [35]. This is because students show interest in the use of artificial intelligence [36] in carrying out academic tasks insofar as they do not have a high degree of confidence in their academic writing [37] and in the absence of literacy on ethical issues imposed by new technologies [38].
Training in the field of ethics combined with psychological capital leads to a high level of education in students and results in the field of entrepreneurship [39]. Research highlights the impact of human capital formation [40] to support competitiveness and social progress. In this context, ethical and managerial competencies [41] lead to the development of educational programs focused on research and on increasing the subsequent performance of graduates [42]. Academic pedagogical communities are considered by recent research data as important factors in the formation of research communities leading to sustainable change [43] by training students for an ethical professional life [44].
Investigations show the need to expand research to highlight the role of university ethics in vocational training in contexts of international crisis [45], in the context in which some areas of science [46] are already concerned with the orientation of research efforts to increase personal accountability [47]. The current scientific space supports the need for better integration of research ethics into university curricula in order to train experts able to make recommendations specific to the fields of science and research [48]. An important role in this direction is played by the ethics commissions of universities and the way of representing scientific fields [49] but also training students in research teams [50].
Although there are important advances in recent years regarding the development of the field of academic ethics and the training of students, new research data are needed to better clarify the difficulties of understanding and practice regarding research ethics in different academic fields, differentiated on the Bachelor, Master, and doctoral levels. This study aims to close this gap on complex issues that concern research ethics in education science students.

2. Materials and Methods

The study aims to provide the scientific community with data that will facilitate the development of a culture of research ethics and contribute to further developments by supporting dialog between curricular and academic ethics experts, for the later stages of university curriculum development. The study also aims to provide data that will positively help students in learning, with a better awareness of the role of training in the field of research ethics both for the research activity they carry out during their studies and in the professional activity for which they are preparing. At the same time, through the data of the present research we aim to make new and customized data on the field of education sciences available to teachers from universities, which will be useful in training students for the ethical use of the specific research methodology.
The research questions in this study were formulated following the modeling of the main trends, concerns, and results of recent research, from the perspective of the current priorities of the field of education sciences, with the possibility that the research data provide openings to other fields. Thus, the synthesis of the literature and the mentioned research intentions led to the formulation of the questions that guided the research: (1) What should the importance of research ethics in the university curriculum be? (2) How do undergraduate, Master’s and doctoral students relate to the possibility of receiving the support of a person whom specializes in research ethics, during the stages imposed by the research projects they carry out? (3) What is the place of research ethics in students’ motivations related to the decision of accepting involvement as a participant in a research project? and (4) What is the opinion of students on the connection between the observance of academic ethics and the norms specific to the ethics of scientific research? To examine the questions formulated in this study, we used a quantitative research approach.

2.1. Participants

Students from the field of education sciences, from the last year of study at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels from the University “1 Decembrie 1918” in Alba Iulia, as well as at the PhD level from the University “Babes-Bolyai” in Cluj-Napoca, were invited to answer the survey questions. At the time of receiving the invitation, these categories of students had, depending on the level of study, direct experience in designing and conducting educational research and had already covered themes/ courses related to educational research in the university curriculum. The course from which the Master’s students have benefited constitutes a compulsory discipline in Romania, with the name “Ethics and academic integrity”, which also addresses issues regarding research ethics. As for the doctoral students, in the first semester of the first year of study, they have undertaken the discipline “Ethics and academic deontology” in their individual training plan and in the specific curriculum, which significantly addresses issues in the field of research ethics, in accordance with the legal regulations in force in Romania and internationally.
The survey items were formulated starting from the international research priorities in the field of research ethics in the field of education sciences, including the current perspectives on the reconsideration of the academic curriculum and the situation in Romania regarding the training of students in the field of ethics. Content validity and the construct validity for the items of the research tool used in this study were approved by the Scientific Council of the “Babes-Bolyai” University Cluj-Napoca, Doctoral School “Didactics. Tradition, Development, Innovation”.
For this study, we used convenience sampling. The link to the form was posted on the Microsoft Teams classes of students from the majors and years of study that we wanted to include in the research, and then we asked contacts from the two universities to (re)circulate the link for the survey. At all stages, anonymity was guaranteed and ensured, the participation of students was voluntary, and they were not promised, and none was offered, a reward for participating in the survey. The dissemination was also assisted by members of the research community in education sciences from the two universities.
Responses to the survey were accepted between 15 June and 10 July 2023, and 170 completed forms were registered at the end of the period mentioned in the invitation. The distribution according to the level of study of the respondents is as follows: 57% are at the Bachelor’s level, 27.9% are at the Master’s level, and 14% are at the doctoral level. This quantitative study was based on closed questions, through a Google Forms form, so we did not record incomplete answers.

2.2. Method

The data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package (version 22.0; Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.). Data analysis was performed with values such as number, percentage, average, and statistical analysis. In the first two research questions, we analyzed the association relationship between variables through Sommer’s d indicator, for asymmetric relations. For the third question, we tested the existence of an association between variables by means of Lambda specific indicator, for asymmetric relations; the tau coefficient of Goodman and Kruskal was calculated; we applied the Mann–Whitney U nonparametric test; and we calculated the value of d-Cohen. For the fourth research question, we checked the existence of significant differences between variables by means of the Kruskal–Wallis H nonparametric test, the average of ranks was calculated and comparisons were made, the Mann–Whitney U test was applied, the medians were calculated, and comparative analyses were made.

3. Results

3.1. Research Ethics in the University Curriculum

In the first item, we asked the respondents their opinion on the importance that they think research ethics should have within the university curriculum. The answer variants to this item looked at the problem gradually, with five steps (from 1 to 5), from the lack of importance of this topic to the need to introduce a new discipline, dedicated exclusively to the ethics of scientific research. The answers are summarized in Table 1, depending on the level of study, referring to the total number of respondents for each level of study.
The data in Table 1 reveal that approximately 70% of respondents (statements 4 and 5) value research ethics in the university curriculum, with the highest percentage scores being recorded at higher levels of study. A higher number of hours is considered appropriate by a quarter of Master’s students, double that of undergraduate students. The neutral answer (statement 3) was chosen by about a quarter of respondents, with values of more than 10 percentage points in favor of those at the “Bachelor” level.
The percentage of 8.22% of those who consider that research ethics is not important (statements 1 and 2), the majority at the “Bachelor” level, either shows that they see the need to maintain or even reduce the number of hours allocated to research ethics or consider this topic unimportant.
We considered the independent variable to be the level of studies and the dependent variable to be the opinion on the importance of research ethics in the university curriculum (Table 1), and we proposed to analyze the relationship of association between them, through Sommer’s d indicator for asymmetric relationships. We tested the null hypothesis, and the results are listed in Table 2 and Table 3.
The data in Table 3 show a value of d = 0.217 for the asymmetric statistical d Sommer’ s indicator, at a threshold of significance p = 0.001, which shows a positive association between the analyzed variables. Thus, increasing the level of studies moderately increases the students’ perception of the importance of research ethics in the university curriculum.
If we refer strictly to the statement related to the need to introduce an educational discipline dedicated to research ethics (Table 4), the value of the Sommer indicator is d = 1 (maximum value), at the threshold of significance p = 0.000 (Table 5), which shows a significant positive association: as the level of studies increases, the interest in the in-depth study, in a distinct discipline, of the issue of research ethics increases.

3.2. The Need for a Research Advisor

The papers developed at the completion of each level of study in the field of education sciences (Bachelor, Master, doctorate) have an important aspect which includes applied research, in which, most often, human subjects (teachers, parents or students) are involved, for which it is necessary to comply with the specific norms of research ethics when using data collection and interpretation methods. Starting from this, one of the items asked respondents to express their opinion on the need for a research advisor, on a Likert scale with five grades (5 being the maximum value), based on their personal research knowledge and experience. We wanted to measure for each level of study the students’ responses regarding the need for help on research ethics issues in the specific stages in the field of education sciences where they are required to design and conduct research.
The analysis of the data in Table 6 shows that there is a link between the level of the respondents’ studies and the grades awarded in this item. Thus, grades with low and medium values (1, 2 and 3) were awarded only by students at the Bachelor and Master’s levels. More than half of all respondents (57%) gave a grade of 4.
A separate analysis was carried out for the respondents who gave the maximum grade (grade 5, last line of Table 6). Sommer’s d indicator for the percentage values corresponding to grade 5 has the maximum value, d = 1, which shows a significant positive association: increasing the level of studies leads to an understanding of the need for support from an ethics advisor in designing and conducting educational research (Table 7).

3.3. Motivations for Non-Involvement in Educational Research

Another item of the investigation invited the students to present their opinion on participation in educational research as an object of research. Thus, the respondents were invited to choose from a list of four variants, giving the reason why they would refuse to engage in such a scientific endeavor. Two of these motivations concern personal aspects (lack of interest in the topic, respectively, lack of time available to engage in research), and the other two are related to aspects regarding research ethics (lack of relevant clarifications regarding processing of the personal data of the participants, respectively, the identification, in the presentation of the research approach, of aspects that violate or may violate research ethics). In the analysis of the data, research motivation was considered as a nominal dichotomous variable, in which we encoded the answers that consider personal motivations with “0” and those that concern aspects related to research ethics with “1”.
We proposed to analyze the existence of an association between the independent variable “level of studies” and the dependent variable “motivations”, through the Lambda specific indicator, for asymmetric relations. We tested the null hypothesis and the data are presented in Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10.
From the total of 98 undergraduate students, only eight (8.2%) stated that motivations in relation to research ethics would make them refuse an invitation for involvement in educational research. A very close percentage was also found in Master’s level students (8.3% of the total 48). For the vast majority of students at doctoral level (83.3%), the ethical issues of research are very important and take precedence in the decision concerning the involvement in a research study, compared personal issues, which include a lack of interest and time for that research. These percentages show the differences in the level of skills acquisition and complexity of the research undertaken by the respondents, as well as the much greater attention given by the doctoral students to the issues associated with research ethics in all the investigative steps they carry out as a researcher or participant.
The data in Table 9, for the dependent variable “Motivations”, show a value for Lambda coefficient λ = 0.5, at the significance threshold p = 0.001. This value is located in the range 0.4–0.7, corresponding to a moderate association between the two variables, according to the specialized literature [51]. We can observe a close value for the Goodman and Kruskal’s coefficient tau τ = 0.448, at the threshold of significance p = 0.000.
In order to analyze whether there are statistically significant differences between the level of studies (independent variable) and the choice of a motivation related to research ethics (dependent variable), we applied the Mann–Whitney U test and made three pair comparisons; then, we calculated the value of the effect, referring to the significance threshold corrected according to the number of comparisons (α = 0.05/3 = 0.016). The results of the analysis show the following:
  • There are no statistically significant differences between the Bachelor and Master level, regarding the effects of choosing the motivation related to research ethics (U = 2348; z = −0.035; p = 0.972; r = 0.002). The average of ranks is approximately equal: MRb = 73.46, respectively, MRm = 73.58.
  • There are statistically significant differences between the Bachelor and doctoral level, regarding the effects of choosing the motivation related to research ethics (U = 292; z = −7.817; p = 0.000; r = 0.70). The average of the ranks has the following values: MRb = 52.48, respectively, MRd = 98.33, with the difference being significant in favor of doctoral students.
  • There are statistically significant differences between the Master and doctoral level, regarding the effects of the choice of motivation related to research ethics (U = 144; z = −6.320; p = 0.000; r = 0.74). The average of the ranks has the following values: MRm = 27.50, respectively, MRd = 54.50, with the difference being significant in favor of doctoral students.
For two of the pair comparisons, Bachelor–PhD, respectively, and Master–PhD, the value of d-Cohen is very strong (r ≥ 0.70), which shows that the motivation regarding non-involvement in a research for reasons related to research ethics becomes important only at the doctoral level, a fact also reflected by the large difference in the average ranks for the Bachelor–doctorate, respectively, and Master’s–doctorate pairs.

3.4. Link between Compliance with Academic Ethics and Compliance with Specific Norms of Research Ethics

Another item of the questionnaire invited the respondents to express their opinion regarding the connection between the observance of the norms of university ethics and the observance of the ethics of research in the field of education sciences. For this, we formulated an item by which we asked the students to express their agreement to the following expression: “there is a link between respecting the academic ethics and respecting the ethics of research in the field of education sciences”. A five-step Likert scale was used, ordered ascendingly: 1—“total disagreement”; 2—“disagreement”; 3—“neutral”; 4—“agreement”; 5—“total agreement” (Table 10).
Through the Kruskal–Wallis H test, we checked whether there are significant differences depending on the level of studies in terms of opinion on the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics in education sciences. The value of the Kruskal–Wallis H test (χ2) is H (2) = 14,983 and p = 0.001, which shows significant differences depending on the level of studies in terms of respondents’ opinion on the connection between academic ethics and research ethics in education sciences.
Research data show the highest value of the average of ranks in students at the doctoral level (MRd = 109.17), followed by the average ranks of undergraduate students (MRb = 88.91) and then the average of the ranks at the Master’s level (MRm = 66.71).
To measure between which of the three groups of students there are significant differences, we applied the Mann–Whitney U test for three pairwise comparisons, adjusted the significance threshold (α = 0.05/3 = 0.016), and calculated the effect size.
After processing the data, we have obtained the following results:
  • There are significant differences between undergraduate and Master’s students regarding the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics (U = 1754, z = −2.644, p = 0.008, r = 0.20, MRb = 79.60; MRm = 61.04)
  • There are no significant differences between undergraduate and doctoral students in terms of opinion on the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics (U = 912, z = −1.889, p = 0.059, r = 0.17, MRb = 58.81; MRd = 72.50)
  • There are significant differences between Master’s and doctoral students regarding the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics (U = 272, z = −3.870, p = 0.000, r = 0.46, MRm = 30.17; MRd = 49.17).
The medians in the variable “connection academic ethics and research ethics” for each of the three groups of students have Mdn valuesBachelor = 5, MdnMasters = 4 and MdnPhD = 5, which further supports the research results.

4. Discussion

Our research contributes to highlighting some stages of formation and understanding of the importance of research ethics in students in the field of education sciences, in the context in which recent concerns in the field of research ethics prove to be insufficient in relation to the general interest in academic ethics, especially in low-income countries [52]. The research data provide clarifications on the understanding of the undergraduate, Master’s and doctoral students in the field of education sciences regarding some essential problems imposed by the research ethics in this field [53].
The quantitative data obtained confirm recent analyses that show that over 70% of the students have a certain level of understanding of the need for research ethics and the ethical responsibilities that the researcher has, even if they differently identify, depending on university levels, the need for education for research ethics [53]. The increase in interest on the in-depth study, in a distinct discipline, of the issue of research ethics, along with the increase in the level of studies, indicates the need to expand research in the field of university curriculum [54] in the context in which it is recognized that the continuous training of teachers essentially depends on the formation of future generations of researchers, called to face the new challenges in the field of research ethics [55]. It is thus necessary to develop the current situation in which research ethics is significantly targeted by scientific investigations that consider the relationships between students’ cultural values and a series of mechanisms that shape their individual autobiographical experiences [56].
It is also noted that although research in the field of education sciences recognizes that new stages of development and new technologies that facilitate the collection and statistical processing of research data are successfully used, our analyses indicate that training in the field of research ethics has lagged significantly behind [57]. Debates on how to teach research ethics in universities highlight the need to train students on research ethics issues specific to the field of study [58], so that the basic understanding of these concepts leads to further participation in activities through which students develop their competencies regarding research ethics [59].
Our results indicate an increase in interest in an ethics advisor in the process of designing and conducting educational research as the level of studies increases. The need for support and training of students on specific topics of research ethics [60] is supplementary confirmed. The importance of debates on training outcomes or competences is also confirmed [61], as well as on how students can be shaped [62], the responsibilities to take on [63], and the requirements to comply with in the context of the broader set of moral norms promoted at each academic level [64].
The fact that the motivation regarding non-involvement in a research study for reasons related to research ethics is statistically significant in our research only for doctoral students confirms the proposals of recent research that recommends the involvement of students in practical activities, together with teachers/mentors, as a step in improving the individual mechanisms related to understanding the values associated with the field and valorizing the norms of ethics in professional practice [65] and in specialized research [66]. We consider in this context that the proposals on conducting new investigations on research ethics in the university space are justified [67] to highlight the mechanisms by which students put into practice the knowledge of research ethics in different contexts and are trained as professionals in education and educational research [68]. We also consider that university research ethics has reached a level of development high enough to support in universities, for each field of study, an academic discipline with an optional character.
Our research data show that only between undergraduate and doctoral students are there no significant differences in the opinion regarding the relationship between academic ethics and research ethics, with the results showing statistically significant differences for the other analyses. The importance of investigating students’ perceptions on research ethics and the fact that it should be a key factor in new stages of curricular reconstruction regarding scientific research are confirmed. Since one of the major problems of current science remains the understanding and elimination of factors leading to plagiarism [69] in academic research, our research data confirm the research in the field [70] which shows that the emergence of non-academic practices in students regarding the elaboration of scientific papers is still possible. Our research, compared to other research, further indicates the existence of difficulties in understanding this issue in students in the field of education sciences, especially at the Master’s level, and calls for the identification of new contexts [71] for training in research ethics customized to the field of studies and to school levels, taking into account the practice and local contexts of training in research ethics [72]. Depending on the particular situation in each country or university, for Master’s or doctoral students who have not previously completed a relevant curriculum on the components imposed by research ethics in the field of study in which they learn, we consider it necessary to provide personalized support within individual didactic activities or an optional discipline.
The study does not investigate the specific problems students have at the Bachelor, Master or doctoral level in understanding specific concepts and in training regarding research ethics competencies during their studies. At the same time, an extension of the study on several respondents from different countries and with the help of a multi-item survey instrument can provide data on general or regional particularities regarding the students’ reporting on the challenges of research ethics, an aspect that the present study did not take into account.
An investigation into the relationship between students’ emotional development and their perceptions of research ethics issues also remains to be conducted in future research. However, the study can be extended to other scientific fields or universities in different countries to the extent that the contexts of student training are similar.
The research can be continued by investigating complementary aspects such as the role of the cultural environment on campus [73] in supporting students to assume the norms of research ethics in different contexts. We also consider that research can be developed by investigating the impact that the training of students, in the field of research ethics, has on the formation of organizational culture, about which recent research shows the need for some redefinitions [74], in the context of where the role of a leader and manager lies in the process of reconfiguration, given the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI). At the same time, we believe that the investigation of the relationship between the emotional support of students [75] during the development of research projects and their interest in deepening and respecting the norms of research ethics in academic practice can highlight new and valuable data in terms of reconsidering the content and conclusions of the university curriculum in all areas.

5. Conclusions

The data of our study highlight a number of differences and particularities of undergraduate, Master’s and doctoral students, participants in this research study, which confirm the data of recent research studies [53]. The opinions expressed by the respondents significantly include the personal equation of the student concerned with the research, including direct experience in using investigative methods in the field of education sciences and in the context of carrying out the work required by the university educational course, regardless of the level of studies at which they are, as shown by the results of other research [56].
The positive difference in favor of doctoral students is explained by the fact that they have previously undertaken Bachelor’s and/or Master’s studies in education sciences, where they have scientific papers that have significantly imposed reflections on research ethics, to which experiences and high demands imposed by the doctoral course are added.
The differences in the results registered by the Master’s students, respectively, in terms of the results being inferior to those offered by the Bachelor’s and doctoral students, including those regarding training in the field of research ethics, which also indicate the possibility of results circumscribed to plagiarism appearing in the elaboration of scientific papers, are partly explained by the situation in Romania, where the admission to the Master’s degree in a certain field is not conditioned by prior completion of Bachelor’s studies in the same field. The lack of adequate preparation for this situation may be due to the fact that during Master’s studies most of the students already work in education, as teachers of different specialties, and the time they can allocate to individual study is generally reduced, which helps us understand the causes of the differences in the opinions of these students.
The training of students in research ethics proves insufficient in Romania, although there are distinct concerns at the Bachelor level and in disciplines that also address this issue at the Master’s and doctoral level, with one of the causes being funding in the field, as noted by recent analyses [52] dealing with the situation in low-income countries. Competence training in research ethics requires a distinct approach, complementary to general training in academic ethics, as shown by research studies that were concerned with the formative role of taking on tasks in the field of ethics [37,63] in the context of the specific research exigencies carried out by students at the university level [15,64]. Also, the lack of involvement of students in research projects alongside teachers/mentors and without the benefit of explicit support on issues related to research ethics [76] cannot support significant changes compared to the current situation.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Scientific Council of the “Babes-Bolyai” University Cluj-Napoca, Doctoral School ‘Didactics. Tradition, Development, Innovation’ (34/1/ 30 May 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data for this study can be made available upon request. Please contact the author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lupuleac, Z.L.; Lupuleac, S. Ethical Behavior in Some Universities of Iasi, Romania. In Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on the Quality Management in Higher Education, Tulcea, Romania, 8–9 July 2010; pp. 123–126, ISBN 978-973-662-568-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Polczynski, A.M.; Rozmus, C.L.; Carlin, N. Beyond silos: An interprofessional, campus-wide ethics education program. Nurs. Ethics 2019, 26, 2314–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yesmin, S.; Atikuzzaman, M. A trilateral approach to design a model course on information literacy and research ethics for tertiary-level curricula: A pathway to university ranking success. Rev. Educ. 2023, 11, e3389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lovett, B.J.; Jordan, A.H. Levels of moralisation: A new conception of moral sensitivity. J. Moral. Educ. 2010, 39, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Begum, A.; Liu, J.; Qayum, H.; Mamdouh, A. Environmental and Moral Education for Effective Environmentalism: An Ideological and Philosophical Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Majstorovic, D.; Vilovic, G.; Ivanus, Z. Ethical Orientation and Professional Dilemmas: Attitudes of Journalism Students at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb, Croaţia. Medijske Stud. 2023, 14, 86–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shadi, A.Z.; Zohreh, V.; Eesa, M.; Anoshirvan, K. Moral sensitivity of nursing students: A systematic review. BMC Nurs. 2024, 23, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, Q.; Cheng, Z.M.; Chen, M. Effects of environmental education on environmental ethics and literacy based on virtual reality technology. Electron. Libr. 2019, 37, 860–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dison, A. Development of students’ academic literacies viewed through a political ethics of care lens. S. Afr. J. High Educ. 2018, 32, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vasconcelos, S.M.R.; Sorenson, M.M.; Watanabe, E.H.; Foguel, D.; Palácios, M. Brazilian Science and Research Integrity: Where are We? What Next? An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2015, 87, 1259–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Robichaux, C. Developing ethical skills: From sensitivity to action. Crit. Care Nurse 2012, 32, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Ethical education and its impact on the perceived development of social entrepreneurship competency. High. Educ. Skills Work-based Learn. 2021, 12, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ozaktas, H.M. Teaching Science, Technology, and Society to Engineering Students: A Sixteen Year Journey. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2013, 19, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Vierula, J.; Karihtala, T.; Ervaala, N.; Naamanka, K.; Haavisto, E.; Talman, K. Applicant’s success in the ethics entrance exam: A cross-sectional study. Nurs. Ethics 2023, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lee, Y.; You, M.L.; Yang, M.Y. A Survey of Student Opinions on Ethical Design Standards in Taiwan. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015, 21, 505–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tunç, G.Ç.; Yilmaz, D.; Özyazicioglu, N. Determination of the Personal Values of the University Students in Different Departments. J. Relig. Health 2020, 59, 1189–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, Q.; Yan, P. Development of Ethics Education in Science and Technology in Technical Universities in China Commentary on “Ethics ‘upfront’: Generating an Organizational Framework for a New University of Technology”. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019, 25, 1721–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jasanoff, S. A new climate for society. Theory Cult. Soc. 2010, 27, 233–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nortes, I.; Fierz, K.; Goddiksen, M.P.; Johansen, M.W. Academic integrity among nursing students: A survey of knowledge and behavior. Nurs. Ethics 2023, 0, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Trim, M.D.; Gulley, P. Imagining, Generating, and Creating Communication as Feminist Pedagogical Method for Teaching Computing Ethics. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC), Univ Cent Florida, Orlando, FL, USA, 26–28 October 2023; pp. 206–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abrori, F.M.; Lavicza, Z.; Andic, B. Enhancing socio-scientific reasoning of elementary school students through educational comics: A comprehensive exploration across diverse domain of knowledge. Education 2023, 3–13, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, H.D. Ethics of emerging science and technology needs strengthening interdisciplinary research. Chin. Sci. Bull. Chin. 2023, 68, 1617–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rissanen, M.; Löfström, E. Students’ research ethics competences and the university as a learning environment. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2014, 10, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Westerdahl, F.; Carlson, E.; Wennick, A.; Borglin, G. Bachelor nursing students acute accent and their educators acute accent experiences of teaching strategies targeting critical thinking: A scoping review. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2022, 63, 103409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Keefer, M.W.; Wilson, S.E.; Dankowicz, H.; Loui, M.C. The Importance of Formative Assessment in Science and Engineering Ethics Education: Some Evidence and Practical Advice. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2014, 20, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Seifert, I.; Konusch, S.; Gerhardus, A. Dealing with Ethical Aspects in Student Research Projects—Results of a Survey of Health Sciences Faculties in Germany. Gesundheitswesen 2021, 83, 645–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Tu, Y.F. Roles and functionalities of ChatGPT for students with different growth mindsets: Findings of drawing analysis. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2024, 27, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sanusi, I.T.; Olaleye, S.A. An Insight into Cultural Competence and Ethics in K-12 Artificial Intelligence Education. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (IEEE EDUCON), Gammarth, Tunisia, 28–31 March 2022; pp. 790–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borsen, T.; Serreau, Y.; Reifschneider, K.; Baier, A.; Pinkelman, R.; Smetanina, T.; Zandvoort, H. Initiatives, experiences and best practices for teaching social and ecological responsibility in ethics education for science and engineering students. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2021, 46, 186–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elkhatat, A.M.; Elsaid, K.; Almeer, S. Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2023, 19, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Crowley, M.A.; Stuhlmacher, M.; Trochim, E.D.; van den Hoek, J.; Pasquarella, V.J.; Szeto, S.H.; Howarth, J.T.; Platt, R.; Roy, S.; Tellman, B.; et al. Pillars of Cloud-Based Earth Observation Science Education. AGU Adv. 2023, 4, e2023AV000894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gamage, S.H.P.W.; Ayres, J.R.; Behrend, M.B. A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dogan, M.E.; Dogan, T.G.; Bozkurt, A. The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Online Learning and Distance Education Processes: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pramila-Savukoski, S.; Kärnä, R.; Kuivila, H.M.; Oikarainen, A.; Törmänen, T.; Juntunen, J.; Järvelä, S.; Mikkonen, K. Competence development in collaborative hybrid learning among health sciences students: A quasi-experimental mixed-method study. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2023, 39, 1919–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dunmade, A.O.; Adewojo, A.A. Cyberloafing in the classroom: A qualitative study with Nigerian undergraduate students. Rev. Port. Investig. Comport. Soc. 2023, 9, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ng, D.T.K.; Lee, M.; Tan, R.J.Y.; Hu, X.; Downie, J.S.; Chu, S.K.W. A review of AI teaching and learning from 2000 to 2020. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 28, 8445–8501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Johnston, H.; Wells, R.F.; Shanks, E.M.; Boey, T.; Parsons, B.N. Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2024, 20, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weaver, R.; Salamonson, Y.; Koch, J.; Porter, G. The CSI effect at university: Forensic science students’ television viewing and perceptions of ethical issues. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 44, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jin, Y. The Influence of Science Technology Engineering Arts Mathematics-Based Psychological Capital Combined with Ideological and Political Education on the Entrepreneurial Performance and Sports Morality of College Teachers and Students. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 911915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Stein, S.; Andreotti, V.; Boxall, R. The Ethics of Private Funding for Graduate Students in the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities. Crit. Educ. 2019, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jafari, E.; Alamolhoda, J. Lived Experience of Faculty Members of Ethics in Virtual Education. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2021, 28, 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Armenta, M.O.R.; López, R.I.G.; Navarro, R.E. Ethics and management competencies in graduate students: Instruments for their measurement. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2023, 34, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Azevedo, F.; Liu, M.; Pennington, C.R.; Pownall, M.; Evans, T.R.; Parsons, S.; Elsherif, M.M.; Micheli, L.; Westwood, S.J. Towards a culture of open scholarship: The role of pedagogical communities. BMC Res. Notes 2022, 15, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rozmus, C.L.; Carlin, N.; Polczynski, A.; Spike, J.; Buday, R. The Brewsters: A new resource for interprofessional ethics education. Nurs. Ethics 2015, 22, 815–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Martinez-Valdivia, E.; Pegalajar-Palomino, M.D.; Burgos-García, A. Social Responsibility and University Teacher Training: Keys to Commitment and Social Justice into Schools. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zemanova, M.A. More Training in Animal Ethics Needed for European Biologists. Bioscience 2017, 67, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Quigley, D.; Sonnenfeld, D.; Brown, P.; Ferreira, T. Redefining ethics and ethics research directions for environmental studies/sciences from student evaluations. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2022, 12, 739–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gerrits, E.M.; Bredenoord, A.L.; van Mil, M.H.W. Educating for Responsible Research Practice in Biomedical Sciences Towards Learning Goals. Sci. Educ. 2021, 31, 977–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Walton, N.A.; Karabanow, A.G.; Saleh, J. Students as Members of University-based Academic Research Ethics Boards: A Natural Evolution. J. Acad. Ethics 2008, 6, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marcos Miguel, N.; Noy, S. Human Subjects Research Guidelines for Undergraduate Researchers: An Analysis of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Websites at Top Liberal Arts Colleges in the United States. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 2023, 18, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Labăr, A.V. SPSS Pentru Educaţie [SPSS for Education]; Iași: Polirom, Romania, 2008; pp. 120–129. ISBN 978-973-46-1148-5. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zeljic, K. Research Integrity awareness among biology students—Experience from the University of Belgrade. Account. Res. 2021, 28, 331–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Huang, J.Y.; Wang, Y.H. Examining Chinese social sciences graduate students’ understanding of research ethics: Implications for their research ethics education. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hagège, H.; El Ourmi, M.; Shankland, R.; Arboix-Calas, F.; Leys, C.; Lubart, T. Ethics and Meditation: A New Educational Combination to Boost Verbal Creativity and Sense of Responsibility. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Andreoli, L.; Vlasblom, R.; Drost, R.; Meijboom, F.L.B.; Salvatori, D. Challenging Future Generations: A Qualitative Study of Students’ Attitudes toward the Transition to Animal-Free Innovations in Education and Research. Animals 2023, 13, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Alexander, N.; Eaton, C.D.; Shrout, A.H.; Tsinnajinnie, B.; Tsosie, K. Beyond Ethics: Considerations for Centering Equity-Minded Data Science. J. Humanist. Math. 2022, 12, 254–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Upshur, R.E.G. Building Research Ethics Capacity in Developing World Contexts: The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics Experience Introduction. J. Acad. Ethics 2008, 6, 271–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Olesen, A.P.; Amin, L.; Mahadi, Z. Research Ethics: Researchers Consider How Best to Prevent Misconduct in Research in Malaysian Higher Learning Institutions Through Ethics Education. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019, 25, 1111–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. O’Neill-Carrillo, E.; Ferrer, J.J.; Frey, W.; Jaramillo, E.; Jiménez, L. Work in Progress—Development and Assessment of an Introductory Research Ethics Module. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA, 22–25 October 2008; p. S4C-12-S4C-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tanrikulu, F.; Gündogdu, H.; YagmurZiyai, N.; Erol, F.; Dikmen, Y. The Reflection of Ethics Education on Clinical Practices in Undergraduate Nursing Education: A Qualitative Study. Bangladesh J. Med. Sci. 2022, 21, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chang, J.C.; Shih, H.F.; Chang, K.L. Status of EECS Students’ Core Competency in University of Science and Technology. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), ELECTR NETWORK, Singapore, 14–17 December 2020; pp. 1069–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shapiro, B.R.; Meng, A.; O’Donnell, C.; Lou, C.; Zhao, E.; Dankwa, B.; Hostetler, A. Re-Shape: A Method to Teach Data Ethics for Data Science Education. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), ELECTR NETWORK, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Canary, H.E.; Herkert, J.R.; Ellison, K.; Wetmore, J.M. Microethics and macroethics in graduate education for scientists and engineers: Developing and assessing instructional models. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–13 June 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bardone, E.; Burget, M.; Pedaste, M. The RRI map: Making sense of responsible research and innovation in science education. J. Responsible Innov. 2023, 10, 2198183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Blaich, C.; Kenny, B.; Jimenez, Y. Leadership in Ethical Practice: Students Learning Outcomes. J. Acad. Ethics 2023, 21, 719–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ghoozlu, K.J.; Vanaki, Z.; Kermanshahi, S.M.K. Ethics education: Nurse educators’ main concern and their teaching strategies. Nurs. Ethics 2023, 30, 1083–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tramowsky, N.; Messig, D.; Gross, J. Students’ conceptions about animal ethics: The benefit of moral metaphors for fostering decision-making competence. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2022, 44, 355–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dinu, V.; Câmpian, V.; Vasiliu, C.; Tachiciu, L.; Dabija, D.C. Ethics and integrity in the context of economic research within doctoral schools. Amfiteatru Econ. 2022, 24, 912–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Weber-Wulff, D.; Anohina-Naumeca, A.; Bjelobaba, S.; Foltynek, T.; Guerrero-Dib, J.; Popoola, O.; Sigut, P.; Waddington, L. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2023, 19, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Magida, N.; Cross, K.; Baloyi, K.P.; Mitrovich, T.S.; Muyengwa, L.R. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism by Undergraduate Healthcare Science in Gauteng. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2023, 20, 04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Knight, J. Evaluating the Impacts of a Research Ethics Training Course on University Researchers. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Doumbia, S.; Rosen, H.E.; Paichadze, N.; Dolo, H.; Dabitao, D.; Sanogo, Z.L.; Traore, K.; Diarra, B.; Sarro, Y.D.S.; Keita, A.; et al. Establishment of a collaborative research ethics training program to prepare the next generation of ethics researchers in Mali. Int. J. Ethics Educ. 2023, 8, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Khan, Z.R. Academic Integrity Training Module for Academic Stakeholders: IEPAR Framework. J. Acad. Ethics 2024, 22, 9–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gibb, S. The Prosocial-Culture-Work Nexus: An Integrative Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Sumin, A.N.; Prokashko, I.Y.; Shcheglova, A.V. The Influence of Personality Type D and Coping Strategies on Cognitive Functioning in Students. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schonfeld, T.; Johnson, K.; Seville, E.; Suratt, C.; Goedken, J. Qualitative Differences between Two Methods of Ethics Education: Focus Group Results. Ethics Soc. Welfare 2015, 9, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The importance of research ethics in the university curriculum.
Table 1. The importance of research ethics in the university curriculum.
RespondentsTotal
%		Level of Study
Statements Bachelor
%		Master’s
%		PhD
%
1. I don’t think research ethics are that important.4.76.124.160
2. I would reduce the number of hours dedicated to research ethics.3.526.1200
3. I would allocate the same number of hours as before.23.5228.5716.6716.67
4. I would allocate a greater number of hours.14.1112.24250
5. I would introduce a new subject, dedicated exclusively to research ethics. 54.1246.9354.1683.33
Table 2. Curriculum ethics and evel of studies crosstabulation.
Table 2. Curriculum ethics and evel of studies crosstabulation.
Level of StudiesTotal
BachelorMaster’sPhD
Curriculum ethicsUnimportant% within Level of studies6.1%4.2%0.0%4.7%
Adjusted Residual1.0−0.2−1.2
Reducing the number of hours% within Level of studies6.1%0.0%0.0%3.5%
Adjusted Residual2.1−1.6−1.0
Same number of hours% within Level of studies28.6%16.7%16.7%23.5%
Adjusted Residual1.8−1.3−0.9
Greater number of hours% within Level of studies12.2%25.0%0.0%14.1%
Adjusted Residual−0.82.6−2.1
New discipline% within Level of studies46.9%54.2%83.3%54.1%
Adjusted Residual−2.20.03.1
Total% within Level of studies100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Table 3. Directional measures.
Table 3. Directional measures.
ValueAsymp. Std. Error aApprox. T bApprox. Sig.
Ordinal by OrdinalSomers’ dSymmetric0.2170.0643.3370.001
Ethics curriculum Dependent0.2290.0673.3370.001
Level of studies Dependent0.2070.0613.3370.001
a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Table 4. Discipline and level crosstabulation.
Table 4. Discipline and level crosstabulation.
LevelTotal
BachelorMaster’sPhD
Discipline46.93% within Level100.0%0.0%0.0%33.3%
Adjusted Residual1.7−0.9−0.9
54.16% within Level0.0%100.0%0.0%33.3%
Adjusted Residual−0.91.7−0.9
83.33% within Level0.0%0.0%100.0%33.3%
Adjusted Residual−0.9−0.91.7
Total% within Level100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Table 5. Directional measures.
Table 5. Directional measures.
Value
Ordinal by OrdinalSomers’ dSymmetric1.000
Discipline Dependent1.000
Dependent Level1.000
Table 6. The need for a research advisor.
Table 6. The need for a research advisor.
RespondentsTotal
%		Level of Study
Grade Bachelor
%		Master’s
%		PhD
%
11.21.022.080
23.56.1200
39.36.1220.830
457.066.3247.9133.33
529.120.4029.1666.67
Table 7. Directional measures.
Table 7. Directional measures.
Value
Ordinal by OrdinalSomers’ dSymmetric1.000
Grade 5 Dependent1.000
Level of studies Dependent1.000
Table 8. Motivations and level of study crosstabulation.
Table 8. Motivations and level of study crosstabulation.
Level of StudiesTotal
BachelorMaster’sPhD
MotivationsPersonalCount90444138
Expected Count79.639.019.5138.0
% within Level of studies91.8%91.7%16.7%81.2%
Adjusted Residual4.12.2−8.7
Related to ethicsCount842032
Expected Count18.49.04.532.0
% within Level of studies8.2%8.3%83.3%18.8%
Adjusted Residual−4.1−2.28.7
TotalCount984824170
Expected Count98.048.024.0170.0
% within Level of studies100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Table 9. Directional measures.
Table 9. Directional measures.
ValueAsymp. Std. Error aApprox. T bApprox. Sig.
Nominal by NominalLambdaSymmetric0.2690.0782.9950.003
Motivations Dependent0.5000.1083.3740.001
Level of studies Dependent0.1670.0672.3030.021
Goodman and Kruskal tauMotivations Dependent0.4480.095 0.000 c
Level of studies Dependent0.1490.042 0.000 c
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on chi-square approximation.
Table 10. The link between respect for academic ethics and respect for research ethics in the field of education sciences.
Table 10. The link between respect for academic ethics and respect for research ethics in the field of education sciences.
RespondentsTotal
%		Level of Study
Expression of Agreement Bachelor
%		Master’s
%		PhD
%
Total disagreement4.76.134.160
Partial disagreement3.5012.50
Neutral16.320.416.160
Partial agreement27.920.441.6733.33
Total agreement46.553.072566.67
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Opriş, D. Perceptions of Students of Education Sciences on Research Ethics and (Re)Formation of the University Curriculum. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070701

AMA Style

Opriş D. Perceptions of Students of Education Sciences on Research Ethics and (Re)Formation of the University Curriculum. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(7):701. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070701

Chicago/Turabian Style

Opriş, Dorin. 2024. "Perceptions of Students of Education Sciences on Research Ethics and (Re)Formation of the University Curriculum" Education Sciences 14, no. 7: 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070701

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop