MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015105279

Research partnership inside & outside the curriculum: Opportunities, benefits, & challenges

2015· other· en· W7015105279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Munich University) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipParticipatory action researchStudent engagementCitizenshipProcess (computing)Critical thinkingPublic engagementExperiential learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the experiences of two undergraduate students and an academic staff member based in the discipline of geography, this paper will explore the opportunities for student-student and student-staff partnership in research before progressing to examine the benefits and challenges of such engagement. Using the model of Griffiths (2004) opportunities for student engagement and partnership in research will be mapped across the undergraduate learning journey. This model envisages scaffolded development from passive research-led to more participatory research-informed teaching and learning. The student and staff presenters will highlight examples from their own institutions and invite you to consider your learning experiences through research. Examples of research engagement and partnership will include opportunities embedded within and falling outside of formal curricula. The personal experiences of the team will be combined with a literature synthesis to draw out the benefits of progressive student engagement in the research process and research partnership. These benefits include development of graduate attributes (Barrie, 2004) and self authorship (Baxter-Magolda, 2004) and they highlight an important role for extra-curricular activity in enabling the creative development of graduate competencies free from the constraints of formal assessment. Key challenges are also identified relating to coping with personal vulnerability, de-stabilizing traditional power relations and altering conceptualizations of role and identity, sustaining initiatives, and considering ethics of co-research and co-publication. We conclude that undergraduate research is the pedagogy of the twenty-first century (CUR, 2005) and that, well managed in the undergraduate learning journey, engagement with the full research cycle can prepare students for employment and citizenship in a rapidly changing world. Fulfilling the promise of research partnership, however, does require co-ordinated evolution of institutional policies that enable productive disruptions through partnership, and appropriate recognition and reward for staff and students.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.005 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Munich University)Same topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207