A National Survey of Teaching and Learning Research Methods: Important Concepts and Faculty and Student Perspectives
Abstract
In this study, we assessed instructor and student attitudes and knowledge toward research methods (RM). Instructors ( N = 62) answered questions about course format, topic importance, and resources. Students ( N = 166) of some of those instructors answered questions regarding attitudes toward research. Five major factors organize topics that instructors find most important. Only ratings of statistics importance varied by rank. Associate and full professors rated statistics as being more important than other instructors. There were significant relationships between attitudes toward and knowledge of RM together with the higher perceived utility of some course components. Requiring students to conduct their own research was not a significant predictor of attitudes or RM knowledge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In one survey of students currently enrolled in a psychology research methods class, endorsement of the sentiment that psychology is a science predicted their demonstrated knowledge of research methods.
“In one survey of students currently enrolled in a psychology research methods class, endorsement of the sentiment that psychology is a science predicted their demonstrated knowledge of research methods (Gurung & Stoa, 2020).”
From Lessons from the field: Isn't it just common sense? Naïve realism as a barrier to learning (2024) · cites this paper as Gurung & Stoa, 2020
Faculty in psychology and related social sciences are clear that research methods training is essential for basic science literacy and to promote critical thinking.
“Faculty members in psychology and related social sciences are very clear that research methods training is essential for basic science literacy (Cranney & Dunn, 2011) and to promote critical thinking (Gurung & Stoa, 2020).”
From Lessons from the field: Isn't it just common sense? Naïve realism as a barrier to learning (2024) · cites this paper as Gurung & Stoa, 2020
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from the field: Isn't it just common sense? Naïve realism as a barrier to learning
Dyer, K. D. (2024) · Family Relations · doi:10.1111/fare.12967 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gurung, R. A. R., & Stoa, R.
- Affiliations
- Oregon State University (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Green Bay (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gurung, Regan A. R.
- Venue
- Teaching of Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-01-23
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 111-120
- ISSN
- 0098-6283 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8023
- OpenAlex
- W3002586227
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 3.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
- Keywords
- research methods instruction, attitudes toward research, faculty perspectives, student attitudes, course format, course materials, undergraduate research experience, psychology education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
