Learning and Teaching Qualitative Data Analysis in a US University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents a case study that examines how the learning experience of graduate students enrolled in a seminar at a US university prepares them to conduct qualitative research, specifically data analysis. Adult development theory and literature related to doctoral student preparation for research and curriculum development informed the course design and data analysis. The research questions focus on course structure, pedagogical strategies, how doctoral students experience these aspects in learning qualitative research methods, and how faculty learned to identify and meet students' emerging needs. Findings include contextualized examples of how the course supported students, how students received feedback in developmentally different ways, and the role of student resistance and emotion in learning. This chapter highlights the need to create a context of supports and challenges for learners and illuminates the benefits of a constructivist curriculum with scaffolding for doctoral student development and learning to become a qualitative researcher.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".