Mapping 'Pitching Research' Tasks into the RSD7 Framework: A Pedagogic Perspective

The current paper maps versions of Faff’s (2015a, b) pitching research template designed for student tasks/assessment into the research skill development (RSD) framework of Willison and O’Regan (2007). Moreover, using the 7-level RSD7 version, we explain how meaningfully layered pitching tasks can be designed to give a wide range of students an appropriately calibrated research challenge – from elite year 12 students at high school, all the way through to early-stage PhD students at university. Four key dimensions of the pitching research setting enable a clear and easily implementable pedagogic strategy. Specifically, the four dimensions relate to whether the pitch/pitch task: (a) is a partial vs. a full exercise; (b) is reverse-engineered on an existing paper vs. a “real” pitch on a yet to be executed study; (c) is totally prescribed by the “pitchee” (educator/supervisor) vs. full choice pitch; (d) is a “third-party” exercise vs. totally “owned” by the pitcher. At one end of the spectrum, a “Level 1” “prescribed research” task (i.e. lowest degree of difficulty in the RSD7 framework) would be a “partial” pitch based on reverse-engineering a designated short and simple research article that has been authored by a third party. At the other end of the spectrum, a “Level 7” “enlarging research” challenge (i.e. highest degree of difficulty in the RSD7 framework) would be involve a full pitch of a brand new idea, with choice on each and every dimension totally in the hands of the pitcher (student/researcher) about their own research plan(s) (e.g. a plan for one essay in their PhD thesis).