Methods that teach: developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy

Abstract

This paper addresses ways of researching the pedagogy involved in building research methods competencies in the social sciences. The lack of explicit and shared pedagogy in this area make it particularly important that research is conducted to stimulate pedagogic culture, dialogue and development. The authors discuss the range of methods used in one study with the aim of teasing out pedagogical content knowledge, making implicit pedagogic knowledge more explicit and thereby malleable. The research design and methods deliberately foster dialogue with, rather than cast a judgmental gaze upon, teachers and learners of research methods. Rejecting observational methods on this basis, and declining action research because of the level of participant pedagogic knowledge and commitment required, the authors examine a combination of expert panel, video stimulated dialogue and diary methods for building pedagogic knowledge and culture. These 'methods that teach' are argued to offer value for other researchers working in new and emerging teaching fields, where pedagogy is particularly 'hard to know' and pedagogic content knowledge and pedagogic culture are underexplored or underdeveloped. ARTICLE HISTORY

A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: teaching advanced social science research methods

“…One of the aims was to tease out PCK and there was scope to do this in different ways across the methods and participants shown in Table 1. The methods, chosen to address the multiple research questions of the wider study (Nind & Lewthwaite, 2018), provided space for teachers to elaborate on their pedagogic decisionmaking in general and, in the case of video stimulated dialogue especially, in more specific ways. Expert teachers for the initial panel part of the design were selected as experts by reference to their excellent CK evidenced through landmark publications, combined with PK evidenced by their significant teaching experience at a postgraduate level (see Lewthwaite & Nind, 2016).…”

Teaching Systematic Review

“…The methods are discussed elsewhere, including their role in offering pedagogic leadership (Lewthwaite and Nind 2016) and in supporting pedagogic culturebuilding and dialogue (Nind and Lewthwaite 2018a). In this chapter I discuss the findings for the light they can shed on the teaching and learning of systematic review in the field of education.…”

“…This explored in some depth how research methods are taught and learned and teased out the pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman 1987) held by methods teachers and their often implicit craft knowledge (Brown and MacIntyre 1993). In the study we sought to engage teachers and learners as stakeholders in the process of building capability and capacity in the co-construction of understandings of what is important in teaching and learning advanced social science research methods (Nind and Lewthwaite 2018a). This included among others, teachers and learners from the discipline of education and teachers and learners of the method of systematic review.…”

Shifting the Assessment Paradigm from Knowledge to Skills: Implementation of New Appraisal Procedures in EFL Classes in Uzbekistan

“…Supplementary methods were expert panel method (Nind & Lewthwaite 2018), observation, statistical analysis, case studies. The expert panel method suggested by Nind & Lewthwaite (2018) was slightly adapted to the local reality: the panel discussions were held in person every three weeks with the participation of selected experts in the sphere of EFL classes arguing the obtained results and further suggestions.…”

“…Supplementary methods were expert panel method (Nind & Lewthwaite 2018), observation, statistical analysis, case studies. The expert panel method suggested by Nind & Lewthwaite (2018) was slightly adapted to the local reality: the panel discussions were held in person every three weeks with the participation of selected experts in the sphere of EFL classes arguing the obtained results and further suggestions. Observations were taken during two periods of four months each (summer and winter sessions) which included the monitoring of progressive or regressive results from the point of controlling material learning acquisition (the level of knowledge) and mastering practical skills (the level of skills) including the effectiveness of both formative and summative assessment.…”