Fostering Research Integrity through Training: The training materials of four EU-funded projects through the lens of pedagogical underpinnings and three taxonomies of learning.

Background: This article provides an analysis of the pedagogical underpinnings that characterise the research integrity (RI) training approaches and materials developed by four European Union - funded projects. The approaches taken by these projects include a dialogical approach, an empowerment approach, a virtue ethics approach, and a constructivist case-based approach. We analysed the materials/trainings created in the projects. In doing so, we propose how to make use of a structured way of working with learning objectives, in order to ensure that research integrity training meets the needs of its target groups. Methods: We applied qualitative, deductive content analysis in which we analysed the learning objectives stated in the training schemes of the four projects. A total of 46 learning objectives were analysed using three learning taxonomies, namely the revised Bloom's Taxonomy, the SOLO Taxonomy, and the Taxonomy of Significant Learning. Results: The results show that the four RI trainings make use of either a constructivist or a socio-constructivist understanding of learning, implement activating and engaging learning activities, and emphasise high-order learning objectives. Conclusions: The analysis suggests that taxonomies are applicable to various pedagogical underpinnings and can help trainers to communicate the objectives of training and learners to relate their expectations to the objectives. We identify implications for training design and suggest recommendations for training developers. It is advisable to pay attention to learning objectives dedicated to foster the higher levels of learning and understanding. Less commonly applied taxonomies in the context of integrity training, such as the Taxonomy of Significant Learning can help to identify relevant learning objectives both for trainers as well as learners. Research cultures and disciplinary differences are generally not spelled out at the level of learning objectives highlighting the need to consider these explicitly in training implementation.