MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Case Study Methodology: Flexibility, Rigour, and Ethical Considerations for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

2015· article· en· W2192797428 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourContext (archaeology)PedagogyScholarshipSociologyPsychologyHumanitiesPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals and teams engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in multidisciplinary higher education settings must make decisions regarding choice of research methodology and methods. These decisions are guided by the research context and the goals of the inquiry. With reference to our own recent experiences investigating pedagogical and curricular practices in a pharmacy program, we outline case study methodology as one of the many options available for SoTL inquiry. Case study methodology has the benefits of flexibility in terms of the types of research questions that can be addressed and the data collection methods that can be employed. Conducted with proper attention to the context of the case(s) selected, ethical treatment of participants, and data management, case studies also have the necessary rigour to be credible and generalizable. In the matter of generalization, however, we recommend that the readers of a case study draw their own conclusions about the applicability of the findings to other settings. Les particuliers et les groupes qui sont actifs dans le haut savoir en matière d’enseignement et d’apprentissage (ACEA) dans les milieux pluridisciplinaires de l’enseignement supérieur doivent prendre des décisions en ce qui concerne le choix des méthodologies et des méthodes de recherche. Ces décisions sont guidées par le contexte de la recherche et par les objectifs de l’interrogation. En nous basant sur nos propres expériences récentes quand nous avons examiné des pratiques pédagogiques et curriculaires dans un programme de pharmacie, nous décrivons la méthodologie des études de cas comme l’une des nombreuses options disponibles pour les interrogations en ACEA. La méthodologie des études de cas a l’avantage d’être souple en ce qui a trait aux types de questions de recherche qui peuvent être étudiées et aux méthodes de collecte de données qui peuvent être employées. Quand elles sont menées avec l’attention requise pour le contexte des cas choisis, le traitement éthique des participants et la gestion des données, les études de cas présentent également la rigueur nécessaire pour être crédibles et généralisables. Toutefois, en ce qui concerne la généralisation, nous recommandons que les lecteurs d’une étude de cas tirent leurs propres conclusions concernant le caractère applicable des résultats à d’autres situations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.232
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.285
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2320.285
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0270.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.556
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.031 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it