eLearning for All: Meeting Diverse Needs Through Training Design

Key Words: Training, Research Integrity, Course Design, eLearning

Synopsis: Responding to diverse needs of member institutions and developments in the field, the OeAWI is redesigning its research integrity eLearning environment. A holistic approach was adopted, creating progressive stratified online trainings based on learner familiarity and institutional capacity, as well as a resource hub to support instructors, researchers and administrators.

Background

The Austrian Agency for Research Integrity’s (OeAWI) mission includes supporting research integrity at its member institutions by providing up-to-date training. The OeAWI therefore, offers face-to-face trainings and an eLearning platform. As the research field develops, for example in the context of emerging technologies (UK Research Integrity Office, et al., 2025), and the scope of research integrity broadens from an individual to an institutional responsibility (Moher et al., 2020; WCRI, 2010), the eLearning platform requires updating to respond to these developments and remain relevant to the research community.

As the approaches of projects such as ROSiE (Chapin & Voarino, 2023), Path2Integrity (Häberlein et al., 2019), and Beyond Bad Apples (Pizzolato et al., 2023) demonstrate, training development profits from building on existing offerings, whilst considering how new material might best serve one’s target audience. Similarly, as van den Hoven et al. (2023) argue, given the relative surfeit of existing materials, the task of trainers is to identify their audience’s needs and adapt materials to them, filling gaps as necessary, rather than always creating new trainings from scratch.

Objectives

Given the heterogenous nature of OeAWI members (including public and private universities, non-university research organisations and funders), the team sought to ascertain current capabilities and needs regarding research integrity training. In the interest of efficient use of resources, we matched these needs against existing resources to design an eLearning environment that fills remaining gaps and is applicable to and inclusive of differing familiarities with research integrity.

Methods

We invited previous participants of OeAWI train-the-trainer courses and others known to provide research integrity training to participate in three focus groups. Participants (four per group) represented the diversity of OeAWI members and roles at those institutions.

In the sessions, participants were asked to provide feedback on the OeAWI eLearning platform, suggestions for improvements in light of their institutional needs and invited to share best practice examples, either within their institution, or existing trainings.

Results

Participants’ responses converged on three points related to the content and functionality of the eLearning platform and its intended audience.

First, participants expressed a desire for a more interactive and practice-based approach. Many highlighted their successes integrating ‘real world’ examples into trainings. The outcome of more interactive and practical approaches, participants hoped, would be that learners could apply research integrity to their work, so instructors could assess not simply learners’ knowledge of the topic(s), but likewise their ability to adapt and apply principles to their own research.

Second, participants responsible for research integrity instruction indicated a wish to integrate OeAWI trainings into their own courses, potentially through graded testing, instructor only zones or question banks to compliment course content. Other participants meanwhile, highlighted the need for trainings to be completed independently. In some cases, this independence was suggested to allow greater flexibility, whereas in other institutions, independent learning was seen as a necessity as instructor support could not be made available.

Finally, all focus groups agreed that trainings and resources should be adaptable to the prior knowledge and experience of their users. As one participant noted, familiarity with research integrity varied widely within their institution, meaning a single training would not meet the needs of their community, a sentiment echoed by others across groups. Future trainings participants hoped, would support not only beginners or those wanting to deepen their knowledge but also assist instructors seeking materials for their own courses.

Overall, feedback indicated a need for more interactive and practice-based elements to improve learners’ ability to apply research integrity principles. Participants also expressed the need for the site to function both for independent learners and as resource hub to integrate into courses at member institutions. Finally, they highlighted that any new training should be adaptable to the user’s familiarity with research integrity, from student to senior researcher to instructor.

Based on these findings, we expanded our scope from a single course to an eLearning environment with three distinct yet complimentary zones: two interactive training courses and a resource hub. The first course introduces research integrity topics across ten modules, utilising videos to establish key concepts and scaffolding these with practice-based activities and independent exercises. The secondary course, for those looking to deepen their knowledge, follows a similar structure but with greater emphasis on reflection and application. Finally, a resource hub with supporting materials and a “guided tour” to relevant external resources will support instructors, senior researchers, and administrators on topics related to their responsibility for the research integrity of their students, research teams and institutions.

Conclusions

While focus group feedback revealed a range of institutional needs, it also provided actionable solutions for the design of the revised eLearning environment. In building the suggested interactive training space with increasing inbuilt complexity, the new eLearning environment allows for the progression of the user’s familiarity with and handling of research integrity material, scaffolding their application of these concepts within their own research practice, therein providing a suitable learning space regardless of initial familiarity. Similarly, in incorporating a resource hub for instructors, the course provides a holistic learning environment, supporting the development of research integrity competencies from beginner to instructor within a single space and contributing to the development of a coherent culture of research integrity. Finally, in providing a learning space which can function independently and be integrated into existing research integrity trainings, the design ensures flexibility of use depending on the needs and capacities of users, both learners and instructors.

The eLearning environment is currently in user testing. We welcome the opportunity for further exchange on the course’s suitability and to engage with further examples of best practice within research and academic integrity communities.

References

Chapin, C., & Voarino, N. (2023). D6.2 Final analysis and mapping of existing European and national OS infrastructures with regard to promoting responsible OS (Responsible Open Science in Europe). Ofis-Hcéres. https://rosie-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WP06-D6.2.-Final-analysis-and-mapping-of.pdf

Häberlein, L., Cengiz, P.-M., Demirova, I., Dwojak-Matras, A., Jacobsen, M., Koterwas, A., Lopez, B., Metodiev, T., & Palianopoulou, M. (2019). Validation of the mapping of innovative methods and research integrity curricula. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 5, e49755. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e49755

Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

Pizzolato, D., Lofstrom, E., Lindemann, T., Tammeleht, A., Schroeder, D., Antoniou, J., Simm, K., & Slesinger, I. (2023). D6.1 Strategy for the development of supplementary trainer guide and new training materials and tools (BEYOND BAD APPLES: Towards a Behavioural and evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe). BEYOND. https://beyondbadapples.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/WP06-D6.1-Strategy-for-the-development-of-supplementary-trainer-guide-and-new-training-materials-and-tools-.pdf

UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), Woodhams, J., Dally, K., Neave, S., Parry, J., & Scott, J. (2025). Embracing AI with integrity. UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). https://doi.org/10.37672/UKRIO.2025.06.embracingAIwithintegrity

Van Den Hoven, M., Lindemann, T., Zollitsch, L., & Prieß-Buchheit, J. (2023). A Taxonomy for Research Integrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x

WCRI. (2010). Singapore Statement. WCRIF - The World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation. https://www.wcrif.org/statement