MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385417482 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6530

Engaging Students in Qualitative Research Practice and Understanding through Constructionist Perspectives: Socially Constructed Qualitative Research Pedagogies

2023· article· en· W4385417482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eliha Sutisna Yanto, Junjun Muhamad Ramdani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNova Southeastern University
KeywordsQualitative researchStrict constructionismPedagogySociologyExperiential learningSocial constructionismInclusion (mineral)Mathematics educationPsychologySocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of books have explored how teachers teach students' qualitative research in second or foreign language classroom contexts step by step. It is rare, however, to find a book on research methods that includes a social constructionist approach to reflective and experiential learning for conducting qualitative research to help students become good qualitative researchers. To fill this void, Janet C. Richards, Audra Skukauskaitė, and Ron Chenail wrote a book entitled Engaging Students in Socially Constructed Qualitative Research Pedagogies (2022). This book is an important, forward-thinking, and useful resource for the rapidly expanding field of qualitative research pedagogy. In addition, it is applicable to a broader range of active teaching in higher education. The authors discuss a constructionist approach to education. The book is separated into three sections, each of which describes a unique strategy or method for actively incorporating students into qualitative research. Chapter authors with backgrounds in six countries (the United States, Lithuania, Canada, Israel, China, and Russia) present imaginative, practical, and theoretical methods for actively incorporating students in the research learning process. The book will be of interest to students, who will appreciate the inclusion of student projects and authentic scenarios through which instructors assist student learning and qualitative research. The book will also be interesting for instructors who want to improve their pedagogy and find new ways to teach.

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 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)0.430
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.237
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4300.237
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0090.035
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.005
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 head0.869
GPT teacher head0.790
Teacher spread0.078 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207