Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Academic Ethics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning
during Research Ethics Training
Anu Tammeleht
1,2
&María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana
2
&Kairi Koort
2
&Erika Löfström
1
#The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
As development of research ethics competencies is in the focus in higher education (HE)
institutions, it is crucial to understand how to support the learning process during such
training. While there is plenty of research on how to scaffold children’slearningof
cognitive skills, there is limited knowledge on how to enhance collaborative case-based
learning of research ethics competencies in HE contexts. Our aim was to identify whether,
how and when scaffolding is needed with various expertise levels to support development
of ethics competencies. To identify and evaluate scaffolding during collaborative case-
based ethics training we synthesised a scaffolding framework consisting of three levels:
techniques, mechanisms and process. We organised 5 training sessions where 46 partic-
ipants (including bachelor, master and PhD students as well as junior and senior aca-
demics) were involved. Data was collected as part of action research from group-work
recordings and transcribed verbatim. Deductive qualitative analysis was implemented on
transcripts based on the scaffolding framework. Our analysis revealed that structural
scaffolding alone (learning material) is not always efficient with bachelor level students,
they also require oral scaffolding when the need becomes apparent. Master’s level
students benefited most from wording the issues they needed to focus on. Doctoral
students and senior academics needed scaffolding to maintain goal orientation. We end
our article with some recommendations for facilitators of ethics education, and encourage
using the scaffolding framework also in complex problem-solving beyond ethics training.
Keywords Scaffolding .Ethics training .Higher education .Action research
Introduction
Academic ethics and integrity are becoming increasingly important in science and academic
research (e.g. results have become more accessible, the nature of publishing has changed, there
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09378-x
*Anu Tammeleht
anu.tammeleht@helsinki.fi
1
University of Helsinki, Yliopistonkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
2
Tallinn University, Narva mnt 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia
Journal of Academic Ethics (2021) 19:229–252
Published online: 5 August 2020
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
are more opportunities for misconduct, etc.) (Bertram Gallant 2011). This means research
institutions need to develop training plans and programmes to continuously develop the ethics
competencies of both students and academics. The amplified focus on developing transversal
skills, especially ethics and integrity, has put the training of such competencies in the forefront
in higher education (HE) institutions (cf. Löfström et al. 2015; Shephard et al. 2015). In
addition, how to support students during the competence acquisition and reducing this support
as the competence and knowledge grow, also known as scaffolding (Wood et al. 1976), is still
an open question.
In the last two decades, scaffolding has gained attention, mostly from the perspective of
children’s learning and focusing on cognitive skills (for a comprehensive literature review see
Van de Pol et al. 2010), but not so much from the perspective of developing general or
transversal competences. Research ethics and integrity does have subject content, but it can
also be seen as a transversal competence needed across the fields, i.e. in research, in teaching,
in collegial relations, etc. In the ethics context the individual must make value judgements
about what is the best or right thing to do at a given moment. Scaffolding does not give the
right answers but nudges the learner forward giving direction to explore value standpoints
without telling what is right or wrong. These are the main motivations why we considered
specifically scaffolding as a useful pedagogy in this particular context.
(a paragraph added)
There is some research on how scaffolding has been used to develop certain transversal
competences, e.g. communication skills among pharmaceutical students (Planas & Nelson
2008) and teamwork skills among Business undergraduates (Jackson et al. 2014), but detailed
analysis of various scaffolding techniques was not present in those studies. Kim and Hannafin
(2011) have researched scaffolding problem-solving, where the focus of learning was on the
process rather than content, where scaffolding supported gradual development, still, their study
focused on children’s learning. However, there is very little evidence on how scaffolding can
support developing ethical competencies (e.g. Pijanowski 2009; Turner and Berkowitz 2005).
We use the word ‘competency’(plural ‘competencies’, as set of skills, knowledge, abilities),
instead of ‘competence’(not often used in plural, general ability, plural ‘competences’)as
explained by Suciu & Mâţă (2010).
The purpose of the current paper is to shed light on how to teach ethical competencies in the
HE context with a focus on whether, how, and when scaffolding is required based on the
expertise level of the learner. The article reports on the lessons learned from 5 training sessions
with a total of 46 participants who worked in 15 groups, including bachelor, master and PhD
students as well as junior and senior academics. During those sessions 2 facilitators scaffolded
the student work structurally and orally. Data were collected as part of action research and
consisted of recorded group-work presentations. Data were analysed deductively based on the
scaffolding framework synthesised for this study. The results will help facilitators of ethics
training to provide scaffolding structurally and orally to best facilitate the acquisition of ethics
competencies.
Scaffolding the Learning Process: The Concept, Techniques
and Evaluation
The term ‘scaffolding’was introduced by Wood et al. (1976) and entails providing support to
students when needed and fading it as the learner gains competence. Originally, scaffolding
A. Tammeleht et al.
230
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
was considered an interaction where the ‘expert’(e.g. a parent, teacher or tutor according to
Wood et al. (1976), or a peer, as added by Vygotsky (1978) later on) provided the help needed
by the learner e.g. reducing the complexity of the task, maintaining goal orientation, motivat-
ing or providing answers (Wood et al. 1976). Turner and Berkowitz (2005)alsoreportthatin
the original scaffolding concept three characteristics had to be present: a) scaffolding is a social
process; b) scaffolding happens through social tools and most particularly, language; and c)
scaffolding as an outside help gradually disappears (fades). In addition, Turner and Berkowitz
(2005) support peer scaffolding by stating that student-to-student scaffolding is preferred by
learners as the other student does not usually exceed the learner’s zone of proximal develop-
ment. In the current article we refer to scaffolding as external support provided to learners
during collaborative learning where the support is included in the training design or provided
orally by facilitators and peers as the need becomes apparent, and fades when the expertise of
the learners grows.
The concept of scaffolding has moved from personal tutoring into classrooms, where the
very personal approach is not possible anymore (Puntambekar & Hübscher 2005). This means
scaffolding is adopting new forms to support learning in the classroom, e.g. instructions are
provided on paper or online environments that help restructure the bigger tasks, expert
knowledge comes in the form of a text, etc. However, Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005)
highlight the challenges with this ‘structural’scaffolding as it may not target the aspects of
various levels of learner’s previous knowledge, gradual fading and overall organisation of the
class, that are present in the original concept of scaffolding.
Naturally, scaffolding does not apply only to children’s learning, but can be used in any
field of life - from students in HE institutions to seniors learning to use the internet. While
there are studies of scaffolding in HE contexts, there are not so many available that would
focus on scaffolding transversal skills like ethics and integrity. For example, Planas &
Nelson (2008) studied scaffolding acquisition of communication skills among pharmaceu-
tical students and Jackson et al. (2014) researched development of team-work skills among
business students, only very few report scaffolding ethics or moral education. Turner and
Berkowitz (2005) describe the socio-cultural origin of scaffolding and argue why it would
be beneficial to use it in moral and character education. Pijanowski (2009) emphasizes that
an effective college ethics curriculum would include metacognition, cross-contextual di-
lemma discussions as well as scaffolded moral decision-making, and also lists some
scaffolding techniques that could be adopted (e.g. decomposing the bigger task into smaller
units, maintaining goal orientation, highlighting critical features and discrepancies and
providing examples/ideal answers). Dempsey et al. (2001) talk about scaffolding in the
context of professional self-construction (in social work) where personal values and pro-
fessional ethics are in a dominant position. For scaffolding reflective learning they suggest
including facilitators, but also a lot of structural scaffolding, e.g. a portfolio with quite pre-
structured sections (Dempsey et al. 2001).
How effective is scaffolding? Van de Pol et al. (2010) examined a decade of scaffolding
research and concluded that there is a very small number of effectiveness studies, most of
which focus on measuring effectiveness with a pre- and post-test, one-to-one tutoring and
children acquiring content knowledge. They (Van de Pol et al. 2010) also bring out the main
challenge of studying effectiveness of scaffolding - namely measurement. Scaffolding is
difficult to measure due to its complex and dialogic nature (Van de Pol et al. 2010). Van de
Pol et al. (2010) suggest having a clear coding system of scaffolding techniques, where the unit
of analysis is clarified (like the one used in Chi et al. 2001). Still, it was admitted (Van de Pol
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 231
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
et al. 2010) that due to no consistent measurement framework it is difficult to compare
different studies as results depend greatly on the units of analysis.
Nevertheless, there are some studies that have considered overall effectiveness of scaffold-
ing in acquiring domain-specific knowledge and metacognitive skills. Raes et al. (2012)
studied the effectiveness of scaffolding provided by teachers and technology - they concluded
that students with limited prior knowledge benefit most from teacher-mediated scaffolding as
the teacher can diagnose what sort of help is needed. At the same time, more advanced
students will progress regardless of scaffolding format (Raes et al. 2012). Pijanowski (2009)
looked into scaffolding moral decision-making and highlighted that the teacher should be
taking the role of a facilitator rather than an authority, whose role is to create the optimal
learning environment and structure the learning process to support students focus on relevant
aspects. Raes et al. (2012) also point out that to cater for the needs of students of different
levels, the facilitator should use multiple scaffolding strategies (both structural and oral).
Scaffolding Framework
As pointed out by Van de Pol et al. (2010), there is no one scaffolding framework for analysing
scaffolding on different levels. After consulting various studies, a framework for the current
study was synthesised consisting of three layers for our scaffolding analysis:
1 Chi et al. (2001) outline a framework of scaffolding techniques and criteria for evaluation
of scaffolding effectiveness (also recommended for evaluation by Van de Pol et al. (2010).
Chi et al. (2001) consider scaffolding a critical constituent in accelerating learning,
highlighting two components of scaffolding: what to say and when to say it. Chi et al.
(2001) framework gave our framework the core in the form of scaffolding techniques.
2Reiser(2004) claims that scaffolding has 2 complementary mechanisms - structuring the
task and problematising the subject matter. Structuring the task means reducing the degree
of freedom and maintaining focus (e.g. decomposing complex tasks, focusing effort by
giving limited options/pre-selecting data, helping learners monitor what they are learning
by using prompts/reminding about important goals, etc.) (Reiser, 2004). Problematising
means making the learner’sworkmore‘problematic’thus eliciting the use of previous
experience to solve the problem (e.g. extending the case/problem, highlighting ‘discrep-
ancies’, providing help only when asked, keeping the focus, eliciting commitment by
provoking learners, etc.) (Reiser 2004). According to Reiser (2004) some scaffolding
techniques help structure the problem in a way that it is easier for learners to approach
it, while some scaffolding techniques make the object of learning more problematic to
show learners different aspects of it. Reiser’s(2004) concepts gave our framework the
layer to evaluate scaffolding mechanisms.
3 Quintana et al. (2004) have developed a scaffolding process framework that specifically
targets key challenges that learners face, namely - sense-making, process management
and articulation/reflection. First, content knowledge is important as this will help with
sense making. Second, the learner will be provided support on which strategy to use and it
should be made explicit. Third, to help with articulation and reflection, attention should be
paid to language, discourse markers and terminology. Quintana et al. (2004) also claim
that beginners tend to focus on superficial details, and they fail to see the underlying
structure, which is visible to the more advanced learners. Beginners should, thus, be
A. Tammeleht et al.
232
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
prompted to reflect and focus on knowledge and conceptual understanding. Quintana
et al. (2004) emphasise that scaffolding should first focus on sense-making –so content
knowledge is important. Next, scaffolding should support process management by
dividing a more complex task into smaller ones and guide the order of steps. Articulation
and reflection can follow when a certain level of understanding has been achieved and the
learner has sufficient vocabulary to do so (Quintana et al. 2004). Quintana et al.’s(2004)
framework gave us the layer for evaluating the process of scaffolding.
Table 1outlines the scaffolding framework for analysis in the current study. The core of the
framework has scaffolding techniques outlined by Chi et al. (2001) and build into a more
coherent structure by Tambaum (2017). The only technique not present in Chi et al. (2001)was
‘extending the case’, which was pointed out by Reiser (2004) and was difficult to pinpoint in
the Chi et al. (2001) original framework, and was thus added. The scaffolding techniques are
explained and illustrated by examples. The next layer in the framework (to the left of the
techniques) is provided by Reiser (2004) in the form of scaffolding mechanisms –Sfor
structural mechanism, and P for problematising mechanism. Structural mechanism can be
included in the instruction or task design, problematising is usually provided orally as the need
for it is dependent on the learner’s responses. Another layer was added to the scaffolding
framework (the first column) and this is the scaffolding process framework by Quintana et al.
(2004). Scaffolding should start with supporting sense-making as the learner must first
understand the concepts and have knowledge in order to start solving complex problems.
Then learners usually require support in managing the process, and eventually in articulation
and reflection.
In order to evaluate the necessity and effectiveness of scaffolding, we used the framework
to analyse the use of scaffolds in a series of ethics training sessions which were part of action
research. The following research questions were posed:
1 Which scaffolding techniques were used?
2 Were the used scaffolding techniques effective?
3 What were the similarities and differences of scaffolding techniques between various
expertise levels?
Two different ethics training workshops were designed: Foundation level and Advanced level
(see the description below and the Appendix). It should be noted that even if the content
addressed in each level was different, the scaffolding techniques remained the same so that our
lessons learnt across levels could be compared.
Description of Scaffolding in Workshops Designed for the Study
To help develop research ethics competencies in HE institutions, research ethics workshops
were designed that utilised cases, collaboration, and structural and oral scaffolding. There were
two different formats of dealing with cases - the first format (Foundation Level) consisted of
groups initially dealing with ethics cases independently (receiving only structural scaffolding
provided by the design of the tasks), then presenting the results and simultaneously receiving
oral scaffolding by facilitators (expert teachers). The other format (Advanced Level) consisted
of groups dealing with cases and simultaneously receiving structural and oral scaffolding.
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 233
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 Scaffolding technique framework
Scaffolding
process
Scaffolding mechanism
(S = structural,
P = problematizing)
Identifier Scaffolding technique Scaffolding purpose Illustrative example
SENSE-MAKING P HIN Hinting Give an indirect suggestion or piece of evidence that
leads one toward the solution of a problem
(Merriam-Webster)
‘So, I guess it is getting rather
late…’ (implying that the guests
should leave)
PDIRFDescribing the problem to
direct focus
Orient the learner to the important features (Tambaum,
2017)
‘Indeed, when you do that then
some other issues may emerge,
for example …’
S/P FILL Making fill-in-the-blank
kinds of requests
A statement or a question which has a missing
component (but some info is given)
‘A good way to get people’s
attention would be to ….?’
S/P QUES Asking a leading question
(P –why?)
A question that prompts or encourages the answer
wanted
‘Where can you find the
information?’
SEXProviding an example Giving an example to illustrate a point ‘For example, in Europe it is a
common practice to …’
SPROPProviding physical props Helping to understand by mimicking or showing a
visual aid
‘What do you think this gesture
means?’(show the gesture, e.g.
thumbs up)
PROCESS
MANAGE-
MENT
SPUMPPumping Simulating the learner to go further without specific
instructions (Tambaum, 2017)
‘OK, what else?’
S RDIR Redirecting the learner Showing the learner which direction to go, which
aspect should be tackled next (especially when
seeing that the direction is lost/off)
‘All right, let’s get back to the track
and discuss …’
SDECDecomposing the task Making the bigger task into smaller components ‘First, think what you know about
the issue, then, read the paragraph
and finally…’
S INRE Initiating the reasoning
step
Usethefacultyofreasonsoastoarriveatconclusions ‘What happened first was …,and
then you …, what do you think
should be next?’
SCOMRECompleting the learners’
reasoning step
‘Splicing in’the correct answer (Tambaum, 2017) (the learner cannot end the thought)
‘... you mean …?’
SEXEExecuting parts of the skill Do parts of the task for the learnertogiveanexample ‘OK, so first you press this button
and then …’
S GOAL Reminding the learner of some aspect of the task
A. Tammeleht et al.
234
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 (continued)
Scaffolding
process
Scaffolding mechanism
(S = structural,
P = problematizing)
Identifier Scaffolding technique Scaffolding purpose Illustrative example
ARTICULATION
AND
REFLECTION
Maintaining goal
orientation
‘Have you also had time to think
about …?’
S/P HIGH Highlighting critical
features
Drawing attention to the most important aspects of the
problem; highlighting ‘discrepancies’(Reiser,
2004)
‘Do you remember you mentioned
the ethics review, what other
purposes might it have?’
PPREVComparing the current
problem with a
previously solved
problem
Showing similarities between solutions ‘What is the singular for ‘lice’?Itis
actually similar to ‘mice.’
P EXTEN Extending the case Adding information to add a layer to the original
problem to help the learner think further, provoking
the learner
‘But what if this person would say
…?’
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 235
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
There was also one group who received passive scaffolding (the facilitator being there but not
offering support). See the Appendix for a detailed description of the workshops.
While structural scaffolding was built in the training design purposefully, the during-
training scaffolding was intuitive and was based on the needs of the learners. Oral scaffolding
was not pre-planned, as based on the level of the learner’s understanding a facilitator tailors the
scaffolds that are needed. Reiser (2004) also emphasises that the learners, tools (i.e. training
materials) and facilitators should form a coherent system of scaffolding.
The ethics training resource was designed so that some scaffolding was provided already
through the design of the tasks. The first format of ethics workshop (Foundation level,
designed primarily for bachelor, master and beginner PhD students) included the following
structural scaffolding:
adecomposing the task (DEC - see identifiers in Table 1) was included in the design resource
–the material was divided into 4 different tasks providing support as appropriate;
bquestions were provided for the discussion to redirect the learner (RDIR); maintain the
goal (GOAL); ask leading questions (QUES); highlight critical features (HIGH);
csupport material was then provided which led the group to compare the answers they had
provided with the ethics regulations (PREV, HIGH);
d during the presentations various oral scaffolding techniques were provided by one or two
facilitators who conducted the ethics workshop.
The Advanced level ethics workshop included the following structural scaffolding:
adecomposing the task (DEC) was included in the design resource - the material was
divided into 3 different sections;
bquestions were provided for the discussion to redirect the learner (RDIR); maintain the
goal (E); ask leading questions (QUES); highlighting critical features (HIGH) (but was
more general than for the Foundation Level workshop);
c during the discussion various oral scaffolding techniques were provided by a facilitator.
The workshops are designed to be used one after another, so the structural scaffolding fades as
the expertise level of the learner increases (as can be seen in Table 2).
Research Method
To answer the research questions, data were collected as part of action research (Stringer,
1999), doing a systematic, reflective study of the pedagogical intervention, and the effects of
scaffolding during 5 workshops organised for beginner and more advanced researchers. Data
Table 2 Overview of structural scaffolding in the task design
Timing Provided scaffolding Foundation Level Advanced Level
Group work Structural - Decomposing the task DEC DEC
Group work Structural –Questions RDIR, GOAL, QUES, HIGH RDIR, QUES, HIGH
Group work Structural - Support material PREV, HIGH –
Presentation Oral On demand On demand
A. Tammeleht et al.
236
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(from recorded group presentations) were analysed qualitatively - deductive content analysis
based on the scaffolding framework synthesised for this study (Table 1). The aim was to focus
on in-depth analysis of cases (student group learning) and not on quantitative analysis which
are more appropriate for generalisation.
Context
The Estonian higher education system follows the model developed in Bologna Process where
bachelor, master and doctoral studies involve certain amount of research work. All BSc
students lead an individual research project that forms the experimental part of their written
final thesis. Bachelor curricula students’studies (in different fields) can culminate either with
the defence of literature overview analysis or experimental thesis. In addition, bachelor
students in Educational Sciences are expected to conduct small scale research which may
include children. For graduation, the master’s students write a research thesis equivalent to one
research paper and are encouraged to publish in scientific journals. Both the undergraduate and
graduate theses work can require the acquisition of ethical authorisation. Regarding PhD
students, the doctoral programme lasts nominally for 4 years and consists of 240 credits, out
of which 180 credits are nominated for research work.
Participants and Data Collection
Data were collected during a series of workshops for BA/BSc, MA/MSc, PhD students and
supervisors. There were 46 participants (15 bachelor students, 12 master students, 11 doctoral
students, 8 supervisors working in 15 groups from an Estonian university). Students repre-
sented social and behavioural sciences as well as natural sciences backgrounds, supervisors
represented a wider variety of fields.
Data were collected from oral group presentations/discussions which were video- or audio-
recorded (a total of 3 h and 18 min) and speech was transcribed verbatim.
Foundation level ethics workshop was taken by 5 groups of bachelor students, 5 groups of
master students and 2 groups of doctoral students. Groups spent about 45 min on the case and
discussion and then about 10 min on presentation (per group). The groups had one or two
facilitators. The facilitators had prior experience in teaching research ethics, but they were not
trained for scaffolding and they used scaffolding techniques in slightly different ways depend-
ing on their interpretation of the situation and the target group.
On the Advanced level, 3 groups worked on cases, one consisting of PhD students, two
consisting of graduate and post-graduate student supervisors. All groups spent about 25 min on
the case. The tasks were focused on different topics, but initial tasks contributed to achieving
the outcome of task 3. One supervisor group had a facilitator, while the other mostly did not
(passive scaffolding). The PhD group had a facilitator most of the time (except for the last task
- possible courses of action). See the Appendix for detailed workshop descriptions.
Data Analyses
As a starting point we used the Ethics Case Assessment Grid (ECAG) to evaluate the
effectiveness of structural scaffolding included in the task design (Tammeleht et al., 2019).
This gave us insight on which structural scaffolding techniques were most effective for
different participant groups.
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 237
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
For the oral scaffolding analysis, all the audio and video files were transcribed verbatim,
groups were given codes based on the degree/expertise level and a group number. Contents
related to the different scaffolds were marked with that code (e.g. ‘BA_G1’denoting bachelor
level students belonging to group 1, other level codes being ‘MA’,‘PhD’and ‘S’for ‘master’,
‘doctoral’and ‘supervisor’respectively, advanced level groups also had a code ‘Ad’)tokeep
track of which scaffolds were used with different degree levels. From the transcriptions all the
interventions by the facilitators and student responses to them were analysed based on the
scaffolding framework (see Table 1). Transcriptions were analysed using content analysis,
relating the quotes from the transcripts to the proposed framework. The unit of analysis was a
whole thought that could comprise of a few words (e.g. ‘OK, what else?’) to several sentences
(‘You m ent io ne d …. Have you also considered…?’).
In addition, the effectiveness of the scaffolding was evaluated based on: first, effectiveness
on the topic evolvement, and second, effectiveness on scaffolding based on student responses
(moving forward, but not advancing significantly overall). By ‘effectiveness’we mean that the
scaffolding technique achieved its original purpose (see column ‘Scaffolding purpose’in
Table 1). For example, the scaffolding technique ‘maintaining goal orientation’is meant to
remind the learner of some aspect of the task and if the learners’discussion or train of thought
moves toward the intended topic, the technique was effective. See the following examples of,
first, an effective outcome of a scaffolding technique, and then an ineffective outcome:
(S_Ad_G1) Facilitator: So, the first task is to recognise the ethical issue, it may be hidden,
or it may be staring at us, like, in the face ….
Supervisor 3: I think it facing us, it’s not hidden, it’s obvious …
Supervisor 2: Yes, it’s plagiarism. [GOAL - effective].
(S_Ad_G1) Facilitator: But can they rely, for example, on the codes of conduct? …For
example, we have this ‘Hea Teadustava’in Estonia …
Supervisor 3: yeah…
Table 3 Scaffolding techniques used with the different groups and occurrence
Occurence of scaffolding techniques used
Foundation level Advanced level
Scaffolding
process
Scaffolding
technique
Bachelors Masters PhDs Supervisors
1
Supervisors
2
PhDs TOTAL
Sense-making HIN 0000 0 00
DIRF 9000 0 211
FILL 11205 0 321
QUES 12 28 5 5 2 8 60
EX 14 30 2 2 0 3 51
PROP 0000 0 00
Process
management
PUMP 3721 1 620
RDIR 0110 1 69
DEC 0000 0 00
INRE 0000 0 00
COMRE 2000 0 24
EXE 0205 0 613
Articulation
and
reflection
GOAL 0500 3 715
HIGH 0579 0 021
PREV 1000 0 01
EXTEN 3200 0 16
TOTAL 45 92 17 27 7 44 232
A. Tammeleht et al.
238
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Facilitator: We have ALLEA code for Europe…all over Europe [pause]. Maybe they can
rely on that if they cannot agree on responsibilities …. There is an entry about this - like, ‘who
is the author of this idea’... maybe refer to some documents?
Supervisor 4: I think that the supervisor should also think about that, it is not the end of life.
[FILL; EXE - not effective].
Research Ethics
The research followed the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (The European
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2017) and the Estonian Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity (Tartu University Centre for Ethics & Research Ethics Council 2017). Participation
was voluntary and based on informed consent, which the participants had the right to withdraw
at any time. Participation/non-participation in the research did not influence the participants’
status in the course or in their studies. The data were anonymised before analyses. The
Estonian code of conduct does not provide guidance on ethics review. As two of the authors
are affiliated with a Finnish university, it appeared reasonable to apply the Finnish Advisory
Board on Research Integrity Ethics (2009) guidelines for research in the humanities and social
and behavioural sciences. According to these guidelines, a study such as the one presented
here does not require an ethics review (i.e. it did not involve an intervention in the physical
integrity of research participants; deviate from the principle of informed consent; it did not
involve participants under the age of 15 being studied without parental consent; it does not
expose participants to exceptionally strong stimuli; it is not prone to cause long-term mental
harm beyond the risks encountered in normal life; and it does not signify a security risk to
subjects, cf. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2009, 3).
Results
This section reports the insights gained from the analysis of the scaffolding provided to the
groups of Foundation and Advanced level. An overview of the techniques used and the
occurrence per group is provided in Table 3, and Table 4shows the perceived effectiveness
of the scaffolding.
There was one scaffolding technique that was not used at all (in the task design or orally) -
providing physical props. The reason could be that this technique might be more suitable for
children or with more specific subject studies - as this was not the case in our study, this
technique was not used.
Table 4 Effectiveness of the scaffolding techniques
Foundation level Advanced level
Bachelors Masters PhDs Supervisors 1 Supervisors 2 PhDs
Occurrence 45 92 17 27 7 44
Groups 5521 1 1
Effective 14 31% 22 24% 17 100% 15 56% 7 100% 31 71%
Not effective 5 11% 12 13% 0 0% 6 22% 0 0% 5 11%
No evidence 26 58% 58 63% 0 0% 6 22% 0 0% 8 18%
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 239
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Foundation Level Scaffolding
The analysis of structural scaffolding showed (based on ECAG analysis, Tammeleht et al.
2019) that different types of techniques resulted in various outcomes with different participant
groups. The learners worked in groups, which already provided peer scaffolding as more
knowledgeable peers started tutoring less experienced ones and support was provided by the
discussion within the group.
For bachelor students the initial awareness of ethical issues was relatively low, recognising
one or two topics out of 6–7 (see the Appendix for a detailed description of the workshops).
Using the language to word the issues in task 2 provided some help (helped recognise one or
two additional topics). With the help of support material (task 3) understanding of one or more
additional topics showed increased understanding. The greatest increase in understanding
(noticing topics and understanding relations between them) happened during the presentation
and oral scaffolding task.
The initial awareness of master students was almost as low as that of the bachelor students,
but they recognised most ethical issues when the topics were worded in task two. Support
material helped some groups improve understanding of one or two topics and the groups
showed only minor increase of understanding during the presentation task.
PhD students usually recognised one or two topics during the first task, but wording the
topics in task two showed that they actually had understanding and were able to see
connections between them as well. Oral scaffolding helped only slightly (pointing out one
or two topics and providing explanations to them).
Analysis of oral scaffolding showed various scaffolding mechanisms and scaffolding
techniques that were used during the presentation task. See Table 3for an overview of
scaffolding techniques used with different expertise levels.
With bachelor students scaffolding was used 45 times during oral presentations by five
groups. Fourteen times the result of scaffolding was clearly effective, 5 times it was not
effective and required further scaffolding, and on other occasions the result could not be
identified. This was expected as some scaffolding techniques serve as illustrating a point by
providing examples or explanations and do not require a response (but may contribute to
understanding nevertheless). Eight different scaffolding techniques were used, see Table 3.
As can be seen from the frequency of use, facilitators used providing examples (EX) and
asking leading questions (QUES) most often. For example (translation from Estonian):
(BA_G4) Facilitator II: Yes, this is self-plagiarism and there are very serious consequences
not only to the author, but also the reputation of the institution may be destroyed, so one should
be extremely careful. (EX)
_________.
(BA_G1) Facilitator I: Will you need a data management plan? (QUES)
Examples (EX) do not usually require a response from the learners, so it is difficult to
evaluate the effectiveness of that scaffolding technique but asking a leading question (QUES)
usually proved to be effective (6 times out of 10).
With the MA group scaffolding was used 92 times during the presentations by five groups,
22 times the result of scaffolding was effective, 12 times it was not effective and on other
occasions it cannot be identified. Also, 8 different scaffolding techniques were used, see
Table 3.
Again, facilitators used providing examples (EX) and asking leading questions (QUES)
most often. Asking a leading question proved to be the most effective technique, still provided
A. Tammeleht et al.
240
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
a positive response only once in three times, examples were even less effective –15% of the
time. Pumping was needed more with 2 groups (e.g. Do you have any other topics to
discuss?). Highlighting a critical issue (HIGH) was mostly effective (but not used very often),
as was maintaining the goal (GOAL). For example (translation from Estonian):
(MA_G4) Facilitator 1: I’d like to draw your attention to something you have not
mentioned - it is not particularly ethical to send the manuscript to several journals in order
to see if you can get published. (GOAL)
Student 1: We forgot to add that it is probably not ethical to send the manuscript into two
journals at the same time …
Facilitator I: What is this connected with? (QUES) Think of question number two - Is
reviewing articles time consuming and lots of work - if two reviewers have to do the reviewing
then this is their time and work. (HIGH).
There were 2 PhD level groups, facilitators used scaffolding 17 times, which was mostly
effective in helping students move forward (continue their discussion on the given topic), but
not really increasing their understanding. Five different scaffolding techniques were used, see
Table 3.
Highlighting critical features (HIGH) proved to be most effective, often combined with
asking a leading question (QUES) or providing an example (EX):
(PhD_G1) Facilitator 1: You are planning this research (HIGH) - what do you need to do?
(QUES)
Student I: OK then the problem is that we have to ask permission of the girls and of the
parents of the girls.
Still, the technique increasing understanding for these groups was pumping (PUMP):
(PhD_ G2) Facilitator 1: any other questions you would like to comment on? (PUMP)
Student I: Yes [short pause] - ‘who are the authors of the publication’- we wrote that the
authors of the publication are - because it said ‘you and your team’we said ‘me and my team’.
Pumping (PUMP) proved to be effective every time, as were filling-in-the-blank requests
(FILL) and comparing a current problem to a previous on (PREV), but the latter two were only
used once.
Often, scaffolding techniques were used in combinations, for example providing an
example (EX) and asking a leading question (QUES), extending the case (EXTEN) and
describing the problem to direct focus (DIRF), or extending the case (EXTEN) and asking a
leading question (QUES), these combinations usually proved to be mostly effective:
(PhD_G1)
Facilitator II: you have been changing the narrative, you had blood samples at first, but not
later. Collecting blood samples has a great influence on your data collection and storage.
(EX).
Student I - because in the beginning we thought it was given to us, but then we realised we
have to invent the context for it, so …
Prompter II - but you invented the context of blood samples, how does that influence your
[research]? (QUES).
Student I - slightly, it will influence it slightly, cause …and we also realised …
Prompter II - what do you mean by ‘slightly’? What is the main difference? (QUES/HIGH).
Student I - ethics and permission and …all sorts of rules we have to follow…
Prompter II - [continues the list] …how do you store it afterwards? The samples.
(QUES/HIGH).
Student I - disposal of samples [agreeing murmur by the group].
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 241
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Overall, PhD groups were very different - while one group received a lot of scaffolding (15
times), the other group only received pumping (twice), which seemed to be enough for them. It
can be said that groups can be very different and averages are difficult to bring out based on
just two PhD level groups.
Advanced Level Scaffolding
The analysis of structural scaffolding (based on the ECAG, Tammeleht et al. 2019) revealed
that decomposing the task was effective for all Advanced level groups. As the Advanced level
workshop design was different from the Foundation level, the groups did not write the report
paper and used only collaborative discussion, the structural and oral scaffolding is analysed
simultaneously in the section below,
In the scaffolded supervisor group scaffolding was used 27 times, 6 different techniques
were used, out of which 39% of the time it was maintaining goal orientation (GOAL). 22% of
the time it was making fill-in-the-blank questions (FILL) and others were used less. Peer
scaffolding was used twice. Scaffolding was effective 56% of the time, it was not effective
22% of the time, for other times it could not be identified. This was expected as some
scaffolding techniques serve as illustrating a point by providing examples or explanations
and do not require a response (but may contribute to understanding nevertheless). Six different
scaffolding techniques were used, see Table 3.
For supervisors it seemed especially important to remind them of certain aspects of the task
- they have lots of experience and like sharing it, they tend to bring in their personal stories and
the connection between the case and their own story might not always be clear. Still, the group
did not ask for clarification even if such an intervention happened. For example:
(S_Ad_G1) Facilitator: OK, can we move on to the second question that [was] opened -
who are the stakeholders in this case? (GOAL - scaffolding was used to finish the discussion
on the previous topic, the discussion did not show indications of ending)
In the un-scaffolded supervisor group scaffolding was used 7 times, out of which 4 times it
was peer scaffolding, scaffolding was effective every time. Again, the most used technique
was maintaining goal orientation. Four different scaffolding techniques were used, see Table 3.
Scaffolding was used less for this group as the prompter kept a distance and only provided
help in case asked or it could be seen that the discussion was disrupted. For example:
(S_Ad_G2) Person 1 - I know that some people in our university believe that you should put
the name of your supervisor at all your presentations as a co-author, even if the supervisor
didn’t really co-author the presentation, cause he is your supervisor. So, that kind of thinking
exists as well.
Person 3 - mmm, in our institution .. anyway, let’s move on. [feel a bit lost].
Facilitator - next one is stakeholders - who are the ones who are somehow affected by that
situation. (GOAL).
Analysis of the discussion showed that scaffolding would have helped to keep the discus-
sion within a given frame - both by time and topic/scope. Supervisors are able to rephrase the
idea in several ways and thus keep on talking about the same aspect without really adding
anything new - they could have used scaffolding to stop the discussion when nothing new was
added. Another place the supervisors could have used scaffolding was to stop speculations - in
this case the speculations took them quite far from the original case and this started to influence
their final outcome (providing possible courses of action) as they were influenced by the
A. Tammeleht et al.
242
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
speculations they had brought into the discussion. Maintaining goal orientation technique
would have worked in those cases as well.
In the PhD student group, who dealt with an advanced level case, scaffolding was used 44
times, 10 different techniques were used, peer scaffolding 4 times. 71% of the time scaffolding
was effective, in 11% of the time it was not effective and for other times it could not be
identified. See Table 3for the techniques used.
There was no one more dominant technique for the PhD student group, techniques GOAL,
QUES, PUMP, RDIR and EXE were used more. For example:
(PhD_Ad) Facilitator: but you can’t study something like that if you tell them that I’mgoing
to see if there’s discriminatory …(GOAL)
Person 1: yeah-yeah, I think they don’t know anything, because otherwise you can’t…
Facilitator: does that mean they don’t have any rights? (QUES).
Person 1: they still have rights, but .. like if…like if someone, like, wants to steal from my
home, I don’t know their plan, I still have rights, but I will apply them later.
Facilitator: but do you see that we also have a .. another principle here - that they don’t
know…(GOAL).
Person 1: that they are gonna be researched like that.
Facilitator: and then maybe harms their …reputation ... (EX).
Person 1: definitely [group talking at the same time].
Person 3: but they should know it, but sometimes it’s done a little bit later, because if you do
it at the beginning, it could influence the result of the research. [group agrees, speak at the
same time].
Table 5 Scaffolding pattern for bachelor group 3 (Foundation level). Grey cells signify effective scaffolding,
white - no evidence of effectiveness
Sequence of scaffolding intervention
Process
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sense-
making
QUES
QUES
QUES
DIRF
DIRF
Process
management
Articulation
and
reflection
EXTE
EXTE
EXTE
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 243
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 6 Scaffolding pattern for master level group 3 (Foundation level)
Sequence of scaffolding intervention
Process
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Sense- making
QUES
QUES
EX
QUES
QUES
EX
Process
management
PUMP
EXE
PUMP
PUMP
Articulation
and reflection
EXTE
HIGH
HIGH
EXTE
GOAL
(light grey signifies effective scaffolding, dark grey ineffective scaffolding)
A. Tammeleht et al.
244
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 7 Scaffolding pattern for PhD group 1 (Foundation level)
Sequence of scaffolding intervention
Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sense-
making
EX QUES QUES QUES QUES EX QUES
Process
management
RDIR
Articulation
and reflection
HIG H HIG H HIG H HI GH HI GH HIG H HIGH
(light grey signifies effective scaffolding, dark grey ineffective scaffolding)
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 245
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Overall, there could have been less technique EXE (used 6 times during the discussion) as
this is basically providing the learners with the answer (to support the flow of the discussion),
the participants also said in the feedback round that they would have managed without the
answers given during the discussion.
For the last part of the group discussion, the facilitator left the group to allow less
scaffolding and the group managed well - they used maintaining goal orientation (GOAL)
once (as peer scaffolding). Doing previous tasks had prepared the group for the final discussion
and the group exhibited advanced understanding, for example:
(PhD_Ad) Student 2: but then this place - being faithful ummm…it’s ... it should be then
later informed that which were the calls that pretended to seek for job and which were not, so
the human resources staff would know .. ummm…so they wouldn’t start to ... really they
wanted to hire ... they got a good worker and then they withdrew, turns out it was a fake.
Because that would violate this being faithful (group agrees).
Student 3: it’sagoodpoint.
Student 2: so we could try to get informed consent before, by saying within this time-frame
and the different people doing and then later we should inform them which were the fake
applications …who were the fake ones for the job (group agrees). Yeah, but I think maybe to
have volunteers who really ask for a job that would be beneficial, because then they would get
a job.
Student 1: yeah, yeah [general agreement].
Student 2: then it would be useful for the human resources …
Student 1: and they have to maybe make not false calls, but in the end they .. get the job.
It can be seen from the extract that the learners were thinking about the positive outcomes
for everyone, aiming for the greater good. In addition, the group showed advanced under-
standing as they were referring to previous tasks (‘being faithful’- an ethical principle from
task 1, considering various stakeholders from task 2, see the Appendix for workshop descrip-
tion), and provided possible courses of action that would be beneficial for everyone. Also,
withdrawing the facilitator and scaffolding happened at the right time as the group proceeded
without any support.
Scaffolding Patterns
We then analysed the similarities and differences between various expertise levels.
Bachelor level groups spent about 4–6 min to present their ideas on the case and received
scaffolding within that time. On average, each group received oral scaffolding about 7 times
per presentation (see Table 5exemplifying the scaffolding pattern of one bachelor level group).
About 30% of the scaffolding was effective (resulting in an increase of understanding or
discussion). Bachelor level groups received scaffolding on 13 different topics, out of which 8
topics were factual in nature and 5 were analytic - scaffolding was more effective for analytic
topics as students required help to analyse the context and this was not provided by the task
design. Bachelor students showed sensitivity towards ethical issue when provided suitable
forms of scaffolding.
Master level groups spent about 9–10 min on their presentations receiving oral scaffolding
about 16 times per group (see Table 6exemplifying the scaffolding pattern of one master level
group). About 20% of the scaffolding was effective (i.e. resulting in increase of understand-
ing). Master level groups received scaffolding on 26 topics - out of which 13 topics were
factual and 13 topics were analytic, scaffolding was equally effective for both kinds of topics
A. Tammeleht et al.
246
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(even though only in few occasions). Master level groups received significantly more scaf-
folding, still, they made very little progress compared to bachelor level groups.
There were two PhD level groups (dealing with Foundation level cases) with very different
scaffolding they received, which makes comparison difficult. Table 7visualises the scaffolding
pattern for the group that received significantly more oral scaffolding. Still, it can be said that
PhD level groups do not seem to need or benefit from oral scaffolding to a great extent. Their
biggest need for scaffolding might be maintaining the goal and not losing the focus of the case.
This kind of scaffolding could be included into the design of training materials.
For advanced level groups there seems to be a need for maintaining goal orientation –both
supervisors and PhD students have experience in research and ethical issues connected with it.
This can be an advantage and a disadvantage - while experience can help recognise ethical
issues more easily, the experience may also start interfering with the case at hand - people start
bringing in their own cases (whether they are connected with the present case or not) and
speculate on aspects that are actually not connected with the case. This was especially visible
with the supervisor groups. This makes scaffolding for goal orientation crucial - it can be in the
form of pumping (PUMP), redirecting the learner (RDIR), maintaining goal orientation
(GOAL), making a fill-in-the-blank requests (FILL), asking a leading question (QUES) or
highlighting a critical feature (HIGH) - all of the above are structural forms of scaffolding and
can be written in the task design and training material. The mentioned scaffolding techniques
would also help limit time and scope of the discussion.
An interesting difference of peer scaffolding difference appeared between supervisor and
PhD student groups - while PhD students freely confronted each other offering thus peer
scaffolding (e.g. asking for clarification of an idea the other group member had offered, openly
disagreeing but also providing reasons for it), supervisors did not do that. When one of the
supervisors offered an example or an explanation, others agreed immediately, even though it
was not always obvious why this explanation was given or how it was connected with the case.
The supervisors may be more oriented to maintaining pleasant relationships rather than
challenging each other.
Discussion
In this article we evaluated the necessity and effectiveness of scaffolding during ethics
training in HE context. We focused on 3 research questions: Which scaffolding tech-
niques were used? Were the used scaffolding techniques effective? What were the
similarities and differences of scaffolding techniques between various expertise levels?
Scaffolding in our study referred to support provided to learners and then reducing it as
the competence grew. Even though most scaffolding studies focus on children and
cognitive learning, we can claim that scaffolding is also needed in HE context and can
be very effective in supporting the acquisition of ethics competencies when utilising an
appropriate scaffolding framework.
Scaffolding may come in different forms. We were interested in which scaffolding tech-
niques and mechanisms can be used in ethics training. In our study we focused on structural
and oral scaffolding. Structural scaffolding can be written in the task design (instructions for
learning), oral scaffolding is provided by a facilitator and is based on the needs of the learner
(indicated as ‘structural’and ‘problematising’in Reiser 2004). When in the past scaffolding
was seen as a one-to-one process, then recently scaffolding theories have moved into
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 247
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
classrooms, and already this poses various challenges. Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005)
highlight the challenges of classroom scaffolding where the teacher cannot cater for the needs
of all the students and most of it must be included in the task design (but that would not be
suitable for everyone).
Our goal was also to evaluate the effectiveness of the used scaffolding. Indeed, our study
revealed that structural scaffolding alone is not always effective with students of limited prior
knowledge. Especially for bachelor students, oral scaffolding became crucial in order to
advance their understanding. This is also supported by Raes et al. (2012) who claim that
learners with limited prior knowledge require more oral scaffolding. In addition, as also stated
in the prior research (e.g. Raes et al. 2012), more advanced learners can advance their
understanding with just structural scaffolding. This was supported by our findings as both
master’s and doctoral students benefited most from just wording the ethical issue used in task 2
(as a form of structural scaffolding). Students of bachelor level seem to require help dealing
with analytic topics, sometimes also with facts pertaining to certain regulations in ethics.
Bachelor students need facilitators to provide help as the need becomes apparent, especially to
understand concepts. Indeed, our analysis revealed that the most used and also effective
scaffolding techniques used with bachelor students were providing examples and asking
leading questions, which both support sense-making. Quintana et al. (2004) also highlight in
their study that supporting sense-making is the foundation for understanding and has to
precede higher levels of understanding and reflection.
The comparison of different expertise levels gave us some valuable insights. While
bachelor level students needed help with sense-making, master level students did not benefit
from the same scaffolding techniques. For them, wording the ethical issues (task 2 in the
workshop) was the most beneficial (structural) scaffold. We also saw that master level students
did not benefit greatly from oral scaffolding (even though they received more than twice as
much of it than bachelor level students). The reason might be the lowered ethical sensitivity
during master studies, highlighted already by previous research (Rissanen & Löfström 2014;
Sparks and Hunt 1998;Niemi2016).
Doctoral students and also supervisors received scaffolding techniques that supported
maintaining goal orientation, highlighting critical features and keeping a focus (e.g. by
pumping). For doctoral students also wording the ethical issues and asking a direct question
helped advance their understanding. It seems that more advanced level learners require support
in process management and articulation and reflection. Raes et al. (2012) also support this
outcome and state that more advanced learners can cope well with support included in the task
design and are ready to get less scaffolding (so scaffolding fades). For more advanced doctoral
students as well as supervisors the main scaffolding need seemed to be maintaining goal
orientation and focusing on the case at hand. With additional structural scaffolds in the task
design, this can easily be achieved.
The analysis of turns of scaffolding techniques in time revealed that scaffolding is not linear in
scaffolding process (proposed by Quintana et al. 2004). Indeed, scaffolding should first support
sense-making as otherwise the learner may not understand more complex problems. Then scaffold-
ing could focus on process management if the need becomes apparent. Nevertheless, if, for example,
during the articulation and reflection phase it becomes apparent that the learners had misunderstood
a certain aspect of the concept, the scaffolding should return to sense-making techniques to pinpoint
discrepancies. Generally, scaffolding fluctuates between different scaffolding processes as the need
becomes apparent. In addition, we would suggest that even though we did not have specific
scaffolding training for the facilitators, this study will help to develop such training.
A. Tammeleht et al.
248
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Recommendations
Based on our study we make recommendations to facilitators of ethics training:
–Scaffolding process: Students with limited prior knowledge require a facilitator to provide
scaffolding when the need becomes apparent. The facilitator should be able to diagnose
which topics are problematic to learners and evaluate how much scaffolding and when to
provide it. Usually, beginners require help with sense-making as this is a prerequisite for
analysis and reflection (see the appropriate scaffolding techniques in Table 1). In addition,
it can be expected that scaffolding process is not linear and facilitators should use
techniques flexibly.
–Scaffolding mechanisms and techniques: all levels of learners benefit from process
management and structural scaffolding. When designing learning tasks facilitators should
consider which structural scaffolding techniques could be included to help learners
manage their learning process - e.g. decomposing the bigger task into smaller steps,
handing out tasks one after another, providing guiding questions.
–Ethical sensitivity and previous knowledge: there are various suggestions on how to deal
with lowered ethical sensitivity pedagogically, but most of them require a wider training
plan than just one workshop. Niemi (2016) suggests raising the students’awareness
towards the challenges in ethical conduct by developing a wider training plan which
would include students compiling portfolios, essay assignments, learning diaries, observ-
ing the researchers at work, personal reflection tasks, multi-sided analysis of cases on a
regular basis, and so on. It should also be remembered that codes of conduct and
regulations may change and it is advisable to keep an eye on them even if one feels
competent in their research field. This may apply to more advanced learners who feel
confident about their expertise and may neglect regulations.
Overall, we see that the direct scaffolding framework could also be utilised to support complex
problem solving not only in ethics education, but also e.g. supervisory relationships.
Future Studies
In the current study, the ethics training sessions followed two separate formats which makes their
direct comparison challenging. In addition, the interventions were mostly facilitated by two people,
even though expert teachers, still resulting in introduced variance due to the facilitator and their
teaching style. As the student groups were randomly compiled, student personalities and group
dynamics may have also influenced the scaffolding response. As we cannot correct for these factors
in the current study, future studies are needed that focus on group dynamics during ethics training.
Moreover, scrutinising student group and teacher talking (scaffolding) time ratios may give valuable
insights to understanding the student-led learning.
Authors’Contributions AT created the research concept and designed the training and assessment
materials for the research purposes, acquired, analysed and interpreted the collected data, wrote and
revised the manuscript. MJR-T analysed and interpreted the data, created the aggregated dataset,
visualised the research results, substantially revised the manuscript. KK conducted trainings and
acquired data, supported research design, drafted and revised the manuscript. EL created the research
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 249
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
concept and helped design the training materials, interpreted results, substantially revised the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding I nformation Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University
Central Hospital, Erasmus+ (2017-1-ES01-KA203-038303) Anu Tammeleht, Horizon 2020 (669074) María
Jesús Rodríguez-Triana.
Appendix –Description of research ethics workshops
For the research purpose research ethics workshops were designed that utilised cases, collab-
oration, and structural and oral scaffolding. There were two different formats of dealing with
cases - the first format (Foundation Level) consisted of groups initially dealing with ethics
cases independently (receiving only structural scaffolding provided by the design of the tasks),
then presenting the results and simultaneously receiving oral scaffolding by facilitators. The
other format (Advanced Level) consisted of groups dealing with cases and simultaneously
receiving structural and oral scaffolding.
The Foundation level workshop for bachelor, master and beginner doctoral students
followed a predefined structure (to provide structural scaffolding) with a prior task, working
on the case, presenting it and reflecting on learning:
1 Pre-practice questions were designed to attune the students for the topic and map their
initial awareness. This took about 5 min.
2Task1–groups received a case with relatively general and open-ended content. They were
asked to come up with an example related to their field (the cases were applicable for
different fields) and to define a context to the ethical issues. The first step was to mark on
the report sheet (underlying/circling/taking notes) which ethical issues they recognised
(both explicit and implicit). The groups had about 10–15 min to do this. The following is
an example of a case:
The research institution turns to you to take over a part of a bigger survey (e.g. an Erasmus project). The subjects
of your research will be girls in their early teens (as an alternative - you are collecting data from a sensitive
sample - rare artefacts/endangered plants), the results will be published in an international journal. You agree
and start your planning. Which ethical issues might emerge?
3. Task 2 - the groups were given guiding questions about the case drawing attention to
various issues (topics) characteristic of the research phase, i.e. planning, conducting or
publishing. The topics students were expected to discuss were based on contents in the
ALLEA Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017). The groups were prompted to
utilise the European and the national codes of conduct. The groups had about 20–
30 min to discuss the questions. For example, for the case above, some of the questions
were:
Which codes of conduct do you follow? Are you familiar with them? Where to find them?Are there special
requirements and protocols for handling these subjects? Is an ethics review required? What determines
this?What is the impact of your research?
A. Tammeleht et al.
250
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
4. Task 3 - the group was given support material - outlining the topics of the case accompanied
by comments and references to rules and regulations pertaining to them, the groups
elaborated the answers (in a different colour), the groups spent about 15–20 min for this.
5Task4–the groups gave overviews of their cases to other groups (thus covering all the phases
of research) - this task was scaffolded by one or two facilitators. All other students were
encouraged to join in with questions and comments. Each group got about 15 min on the
overview.
6 All students who participated in the workshop were asked to fill in the feedback form
(individually) in order to evaluate the outcome and awareness development of participants.
The Advanced level ethics workshop (designed primarily for the more experienced PhD
students and junior and senior academics) consisted of cases that groups discussed collabora-
tively following a set of tasks:
An example task:
You have early stage researchers in your team, who work on your project and whom you mentor. They are
responsible for conducting a part of a bigger research on discriminatory practices in workplaces, and you
want to make sure they do it in accordance with the relevant procedures and regulations. Some of the
researchers will act as job seekers of ethnic background. They will call employers and monitor employers’
reactions to the information about their background. The employers will not know their reactions are target of
scientific research. The scientific contribution of the project is that it helps to reveal how discriminatory
practices may emerge and how common they are across job sectors.
Task 1: recognising ethical dilemmas/principles (Kitchener’s (1992) principles given to
groups).
Identify which ethical issues could emerge in this case.
Identify which ethical principles may be present in this case, justify your answers/give examples:
respect for autonomy
doing no harm (non maleficence)
benefiting others (beneficence)
being just (justice)
being faithful (fidelity)
Task 2: identifying stakeholders (their rights and responsibilities).
Task 3: possible courses of action (and their implications).
The tasks were given to groups one after another after they had finished the previous one.
The groups got about 25–30 min on the whole exercise.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's
Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy
of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
ALLEA. (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Berlin: Retrieved from: www.allea.org.
Bertram Gallant, T. (Ed.). (2011). Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding
misconduct and empowering change. New York: Routledge.
Scaffolding Collaborative Case-Based Learning during Research Ethics... 251
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring.
Cognitive Science, 25(4), 471–533.
Dempsey, M., Halton, C., & Murphy, M. (2001). Reflective learning in social work education: Scaffolding the
process. Social Work Education, 20(6), 631–641 https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470120089825.
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social
and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review National Advisory Board on research ethics.
Helsinki Retrieved from: https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf.
Jackson, D., Sibson, R., & Riebe, L. (2014). Undergraduate perceptions of the development of team-working
skills. Education and Training, 56(1), 7–20 https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2013-0002.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’problem solving in technology-enhanced science
classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255–282 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-
010-9127-4.
Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they
teach it? Higher Ed ucation, 69(3), 435–448.
Niemi, P. (2016). Six challenges for ethical conduct in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1007–
1025 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9676-7.
Pijanowski, J. (2009). The role of learning theory in building effective college ethics curricula. Journal of College
and Character, 10(3).
Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment:
What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12 Retrieved from:
http://hubscher.org/roland/courses/hf765/readings/EP_puntambekar_hubscher_2005.pdf.
Planas, L. G., & Nelson, L. E. (2008). A systems approach to scaffold communication skills development.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(2) Retrieved from: https://www.ajpe.
org/doi/pdf/10.5688/aj720235.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway,
E. (2004). Scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386 Retrieved from: http://www.compassproject.
net/sadhana/Teaching/readings/13808831.pdf.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in
web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59,82–94 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.11.010.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student
work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13,273–304.
Rissanen, M., & Löfström, E. (2014). Students’research ethics competences and the university as a learning
environment. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 17–30 Retrieved from: http://www.ojs.
unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/.
Shephard, K., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Löfström, E. (2015). Teaching research integrity in higher education:
Policy and strategy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 615–632.
Sparks, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1998). Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: Conceptualization, measurement,
and exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 92–109.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action Research. Thousands oaks: Cal: Sage Publications.
Tambaum, T. (2017). Teenaged internet tutors’use of scaffolding with older learners. Journal of Adult and
Continuing Education, 23(1), 97–118 https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971416672808.
Tammeleht, A., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Koort, K., & Löfström, E. (2019). Collaborative case-based learning
process in research ethics. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 15(1), 6 https://doi.org/10.1007
/s40979-019-0043-3.
Tartu University Centre for Ethics & Research Ethics Council. (2017). Estonian Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity. Tartu. Retrieved from: https://www.eetika.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/hea_teadustava_eng_
trukis.pdf
Turner, V. D., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2005). Scaffolding morality: Positioning a socio-cultural construct. New
Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 174–184.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children,
23(2), 34–41.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of
research. Educational Psychology Review, 22,271–296 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
A. Tammeleht et al.
252
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.