Teaching Research Methods Courses in Human Geography: Critical Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The authors reflect critically on their experiences of teaching research methods/methodology/techniques (MMT) courses in human geography for the first time. Through a highly reflexive process involving journaling, they engage with the broader scholarship of teaching and learning approach. Three themes characterize commonalities in their instructional experiences: (1) prior knowledge, (2) preparation, and (3) confidence. Specifically, they were challenged by needing to teach particular MMTs that they had not previously applied in their own research, by not knowing how best to prepare for teaching such courses, and by a lack of confidence with their approaches that stemmed from numerous issues. Keywords: Research methodsreflexivitymethodologytechniquescholarship of teaching and learninggeography Notes 1 Two of us have since taught our respective courses a second time and the third has since developed and taught at new graduate-level research MMT course. We have utilized our journals as an additional source of data (beyond, for example, end-of-course student evaluations) for course planning and delivery. In one case, one of us has turned her attention to the student learning aspect of the SOTL, inviting students after the course had been completed to engage in a collaborative process to explore connections between their own and each others' transformative learning processes in relation to teaching and research in the discipline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".