Note that this guidance is specific to the practices of the McMaster Research Ethics Board (MREB), and references to the application form are specific to the MREB Standard Application in MacREM. Contact HiREB for guidance if you are conducting pedagogical research under the Faculty of Health Sciences.
Pedagogical research, also known as the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL), or the research of teaching and learning, is taking the evaluation of the effectiveness of instructional practices beyond the basic assessment of in-course activities for the purpose of expanding knowledge on pedagogy and making it generalizable beyond the institution.
TCPS2 Article 2.1 defines “research” as “an undertaking intended to extend knowledge through a disciplined inquiry and/or systematic investigation. The term “disciplined inquiry” refers to an inquiry that is conducted with the expectation that the method, results, and conclusions will be able to withstand the scrutiny of the relevant research community.” If the research includes human participants or information about them, then it is research that requires REB review. Pedagogical research normally falls under Art. 2.1 and requires REB review as the purpose is a scholarly examination of education that is meant to generate knowledge, and it relies on direct data collection from students (e.g., surveys about the course) and/or use of data pertaining to the students (e.g., grades, assignments) for research analysis.
It is standard practice for instructors to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional practices by engaging in quality assurance or quality improvement assessments.
If the course data is only being used for program evaluation/course development with no plans for research, then no REB review is necessary.
TCPS2 Article 2.5.
If course data will be used for the dual purpose of program evaluation and pedagogical research, then REB review is required due to the research component. Students would need to be informed of the research use and consent to that use.
TCPS2 Interpretations – Scope #8
Students’ course results and other information on their academic performance is produced to evaluate and document the student’s mastery of their program of study. The researcher must obtain permission from student participants to use this data for the secondary purpose of research, that is, for a purpose other than that for which it was initially intended.
If using course data for research and the data was not collected anonymously at initial collection then REB review is required. Data such as grades, assignments, and reflections are normally considered either identifiable or non-identifiable (de-identified or anonymized) and therefore their use requires REB review.
See TCPS2 – Consent and Secondary Use of Information for Research Purposes, TCPS2 Chapter 5 – D
Where to indicate the Secondary Use of Data in the MREB standard application:
In studies where the instructor conducts research on their own courses, they will need to think through the power differentials in the relationships they have with their students and teaching assistants.
These power-over relationships can influence how comfortable participants might feel in declining instructors’ invitations to participate in their research. Students are a “captive population” in that the student is dependent on the instructor in their academic life, and this can impact the voluntariness of their participation.
Instructors should be particularly sensitive to power differentials and create appropriate safeguards to ensure that they are not exerting undue influence over their students’ voluntariness to dissent or consent to participate in their research.
TCPS2 – Article 3.1 – undue influence section
Where to consider Power Differentials in the MREB standard application:
Students enroll in courses for the purpose of gaining knowledge and mastery of a topic rather than to be participants in research projects run by their professors. When planning a study, researchers might think of ways to conduct their research so that it does not intrude excessively into that primary purpose. An additional participant burden might surface if there is a flood of pedagogical research across the university’s departments, especially for students in first- and second-year courses.
Best practice is to make the study information available for students to view outside of class time, e.g., post the letter of information on ‘Avenue to Learn’ that links to an online consent that students can complete confidentially at a convenient time.
Where to consider Participant Burden in the MREB standard application:
To minimize undue influence on student participation, the researcher should not know who consented to the research until after grades have been submitted, and this should be clearly communicated to the students. In most cases this may require not interacting with the data until after the course is over (excepting certain cases – e.g., if an anonymous survey about a teaching intervention was part of the study). It is important to lay out a clear plan for the student participants with respect to the timing of consent and data collection, and when the researcher/instructor will have access, in the Letter of Information and Recruitment documents.
To facilitate the above, many researchers find it useful to approach a colleague, another researcher, or a research assistant, who has no connection with the course, to serve as an intermediary who will receive or collect the consent forms, surveys or other instruments or exercises that the students are going to be invited to complete as part of the research. This person might strip any personal identifiers from the raw data and could also be the person who would create and hold securely a copy of the data key that links data to the participant if identifiers are being removed. Note that for certain data it is not possible to claim the instructor/researcher will not be able to identify the data with individual students – e.g., if using assignments as research data, the instructor/researcher also has access to the full set of assignments, with names attached, in their instructor role.
In classes where graduate students serve as teaching assistants and will have regular and sometimes more direct contact with student participants, it is important that their teaching assistant roles and any roles related to the study are carefully outlined to ensure confidentiality.
In studies where the researcher is not involved in the course and the instructor is not part of the research team, the above concerns are lessened. The researcher could collect consent and data, but it is still important that the student participation be kept confidential from the course instructor, to minimize any perceived undue influence.
TCPS2 Article 3.1 – undue influence section
Where to consider the Researcher’s Access to and Analysis of Data in the MREB standard application:
In other words, who will know which students participated or not, and will the data be de-identified before being shared with the instructor.
Instructors already have a duty to ensure that students’ grades, assignments, and special educational needs remain confidential. Respect for students’ privacy is an integral part of the instructor’s role. When in the dual role, the instructor/researcher must also demonstrate to the participants and to the Research Ethics Board that care is being exercised to protect the privacy of the student participants and the confidentiality of their data during data collection, data storage and results dissemination.
Where to consider Data Security in the MREB standard application:
According to the Privacy Office, FIPPA indicates that only the custodian of contact information should forward any recruitment emails. For example, if a researcher wanted to collect data from a few courses, they could not request that those instructors provide them with the student email addresses for recruitment. The instructors, or the department, would need to send out the email recruitment on behalf of the researcher.
Where to consider forms of Research Recruitment in the MREB standard application:
Many instructors will use bonus marks to incentivize students to participate in the pedagogical research activities taking place (e.g., taking part in an optional teaching intervention). Some McMaster University programs have set up participant pools (e.g., PNB participant pool) where students can sign up for research projects outside of the course in exchange for course credits.
When the data collection only involves use of course materials (e.g., assignments, exams, grades, etc.), some researchers have offered a bonus mark just for responding to the consent form requesting the secondary use for research. In that scenario, whether students choose to allow their course materials to be used for research or not is irrelevant, as they are being incentivized to read and respond to the Letter of Information and Consent, they receive the bonus mark either way. The Letter of Information and Consent can be posted on Avenue2Learn with the option to “consent” or “not consent”, or the consent question can appear at the end of a test or exam, assuming students have already received information about the research.
Due to some of the extra ethical requirements associated with using bonus marks as incentives (see below), some researchers instead prefer to use a draw prize as an incentive. Students who participate in the study receive an entry in the draw. The prize could be a large gift card or several smaller gift cards.
It is important to note that using even minimal bonus marks, participation credits, or re-weighting of exams, as an incentive creates a high-value incentive for students and can impact voluntariness. This is why the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, via the Panel on Research Ethics, has clarified the requirements below with respect to involving student grades to encourage research participation.
TCPS2 Interpretations – Consent #3 and #4
In some institutions, post-secondary students (mostly in first year psychology courses) participate in research to receive bonus credits over and above their normal grade in an academic course. In other institutions, students’ participation in research is part of the curriculum, and the participation is reflected in the grade earned in the course. In both cases, to ensure that participation in research is voluntary and to minimize the risk of undue influence (Article 3.1), students should be given an alternative means of earning an equivalent participation credit. For example, instead of participating in a survey, students could submit a short written assignment about the uses of surveys or survey techniques. To maximize freedom of choice, the effort and time expended for the research and the offered alternative, as well as the potential rewards, should be comparable.
Penalizing post-secondary students, who participate in research for course credit but who later decide to withdraw from participation in research, by refusing to award them the promised incentive, is a form of coercion (Application of Article 3.1). This is contrary to the principles of TCPS. The imposition of penalties runs directly contrary to a participant’s right to withdraw from participation in research at any time (Article 3.1(b)) without suffering any disadvantage or reprisal. If the incentive for participation is a lump-sum reward (Application of Article 3.1(b)), student participants, like all participants, are entitled to the full amount of the reward for their participation even if they choose to withdraw at any point in time. If a schedule of incentives is used, student participants shall be awarded the incentive earned in proportion to the extent of their participation. For example, a student who completes only one part of a three-part participation commitment in a research study is awarded course credits for one part only. As part of the consent process, researchers should provide participants the necessary information for making an informed decision to participate in research (Article 3.2), including an explanation of the responsibilities of participants, and assurances regarding their rights and freedom to withdraw at any time without prejudice to pre-existing entitlements.
Where to consider Incentives in the MREB standard application:
According to the TCPS2, consent shall be given voluntarily, can be withdrawn at any time, and must be fully informed. A Letter of Information and Consent is required for all research to ensure fully informed consent.
The Consent Process, TCPS2 Chapter 3
Consent and Secondary Use of Information for Research Purposes, TCPS2 Chapter 5 – D
Where to consider Consent in the MREB standard application:
McMaster Research Ethics Board (MREB)
If your course falls under both, the Faculty of Health Sciences and another Faculty, please check which of the two McMaster University research ethics boards should review your research or contact one of the REBs at McMaster.
If your course is listed under the Faculty of Health Sciences, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB) will do the ethics review: