Effectiveness of teaching-learning, research and innovative actions in Hawassa University, Ethiopia

Abstract

The study examined the effectiveness of teaching-learning, research and innovative actions in Hawassa University. The study employed a mixed method research, with concurrent triangulation design. A researcher selected the samples of the study from target population using convenience, purposive, stratified and simple random sampling techniques. Then, a researcher collected data from 421 participants using open-and-closed ended self-constructed questionnaires, unstructured interview and document examination. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Although exposing students to research contents and process aids understanding of knowledge construction, deep learning, networking and employability, the integration of teaching, learning, research and innovative actions inadequately contributed to technological, administrative, instructional and pedagogical innovations. The conceptualization and contextualization of the nexus between teaching learning, research and innovative actions in higher education institutions are important to promote students’ knowledge construction, deep learning and self-confidence. The study recommended that the academic staffs and postgraduates should participate in integration of teaching, learning, research and community services to improve their academic and professional capital. Instructors should use research-informed and research-based teaching and learning strategies while planning, implementing and evaluating instruction. Hawassa University should conduct tracer studies to evaluate graduates employability and improve technological, administrative, instructional and pedagogical innovations.

Keywords:

• Academic and professional capital
• innovative action
• research-based-teaching and learning
• research -informed teaching and learning

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

The 21st century higher education institution classroom requires the 21st century instructors and students. In the Ethiopian context, both instructors and students of higher education institutions are equally important in implementing the curriculum in classrooms, ahead of engaging in research, innovation, and community services. Effective modern integration of teaching, research, learning, and innovation actions in HEIs promotes technological, administrative, instructional, and pedagogical innovations. Therefore, the paradigm shift from independent teaching and research activities to research-informed/based-teaching and learning contributes to the development of the academic and professional capital of higher education graduates, in addition to boosting higher education-industry links and the development of 21^st century professional competencies and skills of graduates.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

Higher education institutions play essential roles in society by creating new knowledge and transmitting it to students, fostering innovation and research-based educational practices among researchers in higher education (Fatima, 2014). Higher education in the 21^st century has brought rapid transformation into individualized growth and social, cultural, political, economic, and technological development (Schwab, 2010). However, an increased need for accountability measures and higher education is facing the challenge of re-conceptualizing the methods and procedures used to show the quality and excellence of higher education programs (Noaman et al., 2015) which negatively influences the implementation of both substantive and procedural autonomy. Different scholars have suggested that a quality higher education institution significantly contributes to the sustainable development of a country. The quality higher education and training are crucial for economies that want to move up the value chain beyond simple production processes and products (Schwab, 2010). Furthermore, UNESCO that

… .“Without adequate higher education and research institutions providing a critical mass of skilled and educated people, no country can ensure genuine endogenous and sustainable development and, in particular, developing countries and least developed countries cannot reduce the gap separating them from the industrially developed ones” (UNESCO,1998, p. 1).

As a means of transformation from knowledge generation to knowledge dissemination and utilization, research on practical societal impacts has given priority because development is unthinkable without skilled citizens who come out of a competitive type of education system in 21^st century schooling (ETP, 1994). At the center of development, teaching-learning practices and research are scholarly activities that draw high-level performances and expertise in the discipline and relevant professional experiences, together with communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills (Abraham et al., 2019; Girma, 2020). When Ethiopia is moving to stand among middle-income countries of the 2030 agenda of global sustainable development goals or the third mission, one may ask about the quality of higher education and instruction as key priority areas in the arena of development. More specifically, effective teachers possess competencies developed from research informed knowledge in teaching-learning practices (McIntyre, 2005). The key to effective teaching is the balance between theory and practice (Pacheco, 2005). This balance occurs when schools encourage teachers’ use of research-based knowledge to guarantee the quality of instruction at the center.

In the Ethiopian context, much pressure on the reform agenda enables teachers to conduct more researches apart from their professional development and to improve their practice by linking teaching to research; publishing and disseminating their research outputs, and presenting them in seminars and workshops (FDRE, 2003). The symbiotic relationship that exists among research, teaching, and learning explains the contribution of research to teaching and the quality of education on the one hand, and the opportunities that teaching creates for research activities on the other hand (Adane, 2000). This emphasizes that teaching, learning, and research are experience-based disciplines and are part of teachers’ professional development in higher education institutions.

Despite access to the opportunities, there are many complaints that research done by Ethiopian higher education institutions’ academics did not serve the purpose of solving contextual problems in education (ETP, 1994). The exclusion of research activities from the teaching-learning process leads to persistence of educational problems. According to higher education proclamation (No. 531/2003) that governs higher education institutions in the country (FDRE, 2003), there are important requirements in this legislation that set the framework for research in education institutions. The higher education proclamation states that “academic staffs” mean employees of higher education institutions who devote 75% of their time to teaching and 25% of their time to research with little modification to 60%, 25%, 15% for teaching, research and community services respectively.

… .It has become necessary to create an appropriate legal framework to guide higher education in achieving their missions expected of them by the government and public as the previous proclamation has shortages in its contents. and, to create an appropriate legal framework to ensure quality and relevance of higher institutions, and ensure that they are center of excellence in learning, research and community service (60%, 40%); and ensure that higher institutions give due attention and priority to nationally prioritized areas and lay governance system of transparency, equity and accountability “(Higher Education Proclamation No … ./2019, p.1).

Most Ethiopian higher education institutions are not engaged in as much research and studies as they are required of them (Habtamu, 2003). This shows that practitioners considered research as a marginal aspect of teaching rather than being indispensable to maintaining higher standards. Sometimes, students feel that they are just “cheap labor” for the teachers, when they are engaged in actual knowledge production together with a teacher. This is related to the perspective of the distribution of authority (Dekker, 2016), where students and teachers in different disciplines were interviewed about their views and experiences with research-based teaching and learning. This reflects the concerns of ownerships and the challenges when students and teachers practice the link between research and teaching in joint supervision. Research-based teaching and learning involve teaching through meaningful and hands-on experiences in research. Students are researchers who ask complex questions, search for answers by conducting research, and report on their research. The teaching-research nexus is a continuum with no relationship between teaching and research at one end and a full relationship between teaching and research at the other end.

This study has practical significance in showing the degree to which teaching in higher education/pedagogical practices aligns with research and innovative actions in higher education institutions. It guides academic staffs, non-academic staffs, learners, and the community at large towards attaining 21st century competencies and skills to provide educational services and maintain the third mission and sustainability. In addition, the study possesses academic significance in that it helps leaders, managers, and instructors to design their own strategies that enable them to motivate and reward best students, teachers, researchers, and leaders with the best professional, technological, and pedagogical innovations in the excursion of ensuring the quality of higher education and striving for excellence.

1.2. Rationales of the study

Higher education institutions improve the relevance of their education and better prepare students for follow-up studies and the emerging demands of the labor market for the 21^st century. The research activities carried out in universities are inadequate both in quantity and in quality because of challenges such as lack of research funds, fewer facilities, poor management support systems, teaching load, and shortage of qualified and committed staff (Dawit, 2014). In the Ethiopian context, higher education management is less accountable and responsible for accomplishing tasks such as creating a positive working environment, conducting research and problem-solving activities, managerial and academic decision-making, ensuring academic excellence, and mobilizing resources to fulfill educational facilities (Girma, 2020).

However, few studies conducted on the problems associated with teaching, research, innovative actions, and learning in higher education institutions in Ethiopia (e.g. Adane, 2000; Dawit, 2014; Fung, 2017; Girma, 2020; Habtamu, 2003; Wariyo, 2020). These studies revealed that the effectiveness of teaching, learning, research, and innovative actions in higher education institutions faces a number of perplexing paradoxes. Thus, higher education, research, and teaching and learning process are key axes and change dynamics in the walk of globalization because the culture of cultivating ownership in the university community and other key stakeholders for quality issues is an effective method (Wariyo, 2020). Today, learners view themselves as participants in creating information and new ideas (Koul, 2008) because 21^st century instruction is based on three pedagogical principles (3P’s) such as personalization, participation, and productivity (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). This learning occurs through authentic real-world contexts and problem solving, and constitutes powerful learning strategies to develop professional capital for creating assets in their future professional world. Forming working relationships with teachers and partners in the community and working collaboratively with peers contributes to productive learning experiences for learners worldwide (Bolstad, 2011). In this regard, graduate tracer studies show that the employment status of graduates, their academic standings, and employers’ satisfaction (Girma, 2020) highlights the effectiveness of higher education institutions. Therefore, research outputs and innovation add valuable insights to different pedagogues that support learners in mastering 21^st century skills and competences that best prepare them for the ever-changing world.

The linkage between research practices, outputs, teaching-learning process and innovative actions are important in improving the development of research- based knowledge via implementation of studnt-centered learning strategies. The research-based teaching and learning process promotes higher-order learning outcomes and critical thinking expected from higher education institutions. This practice put a pragmatic milestone with the belief of creating meaning through actions and interactions in experience-based education (integrated teaching and research activities). This shows how the implementation of theoretical and practical ideas in the curriculum resources occurs (Fung, 2017) via research- informed instructional process. This study bridged the theoretical and practical gaps associated with linking resarch-based knowledge and instructional practices. Therfore, this study examined the alignments among teaching-learning, resarch and innovative actions in higher education institutions, with particulare reference to Hawassa University, Ethiopia. e

1.3 Research questions

1. How well do teaching-learning and research milieus enable generation and translation of knowledge to innovative actions in higher education institutions?

2. To what extent are teaching-learning, research practices and innovative actions aligned together to subsidize sustainable development in higher education institutions?

1. To what extents are inquiry-based teaching, learning, research and innovative action preparing graduates with required knowledge, skills and innovation?

2. To what extent are higher education institutions augmenting professional competencies, professionalism and innovative actions of instructors and postgraduate students?

3. How well are higher education institutions strive to achieve excellence in teaching learning/pedagogical process, research, community services and innovative actions?

4. Review of Related Literature.

2.1 Teaching in higher education

Higher education is a post-secondary education given to students in higher education institutions while research is the practical activity carried out by teachers and students to solve local, national, and international problems. Research outputs are the new knowledge or findings of the research that are useful in solving teaching and learning, and community problems, where innovative action is the action to be taken to produce creative assumptions.

Higher education institutions respond to and through all three core function areas of teaching, research, and community engagement, through the development of new curricula and qualifications to address new education and training needs, knowledge needs, and forging new partnerships and joint ventures with industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, government, community organizations, and other stakeholders (Barnard, 2007Pertaining to research-informed teaching model, Griffiths (2004) recommended that research-based curricula undertake research and inquiry. The curriculum focuses on ensuring teaching and learning processes and teaching as the main tasks of universities; thus, the student learns in inquiry mode (i.e., the students become producers of knowledge, not just consumers) in promoting the quality of education in HEIs. The benefits of teaching in which students learn through inquiry informs staff research, provide valuable teaching material with outputs feeding back into the curriculum (Harland, 2016). Teaching in higher education and pedagogical research praxis becomes complex in from time to time, and none of the existing approaches can be sufficient to discover its complexity.

One of the challenges for Universities is their continuation a backbone of society, providing knowledge, and educating young people to address complex global challenges. The two main European policies, the Bologna process, started in 1999, and the Lisbon strategy, including the modernization agenda for universities, new national policies that principally affect governance, autonomy, funding, research, and external quality assurance (Pavel, 2012). Within the international framework, according to the Bologna process, the orientation of master’s studies in Europe tends improved new-generation learners and offers opportunities for originality in idea development and use, including research. Research in rapidly changing and turbulent contexts reinforces the needs of all stakeholders such as children, families, professionals, and policy audiences (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008).

2.2. Research for innovation and research on innovation in higher education institutions

Research is an outlet value for innovation, which is responsible for broadening knowledge and ensuring quality in higher education institutions (Marsh & Hattie, 2002). In the innovation field, the dynamic comprises both “research for innovation” and “research on innovation.” Therefore, research on innovation has gained importance on why and how certain enabling environments encourage innovation and help optimize its various benefits. Research can identify how knowledge translates into innovative actions and how diversity can drive positive changes. The contemporary universities are in positions to perform effective and efficient tasks to narrow the gaps between research activities and the teaching-learning process through research-based approaches to higher education. This occurs by creating an environment that includes the vital integration of research activity and the teaching-learning process, new emphasis on innovations, and better preparation of students as future professionals (Barnard, 2007, 2007, 2007).

The exposure graduate students to research contents and processes aids their understanding of knowledge construction within the discipline, enhances deep learning, and promotes confidence, networking, and employability (Walkington, 2015). Thus, research-based studies assist the 21st century visions of universities to link higher education with research as creative activities at every level (Deignan, 2009; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). Educational researchers believe that the nexus of conducting research, disseminating, using outputs, and teaching in higher education by creating a friendly environment and work culture. These efforts further improve the nexus between education, and research programs that provide multi-disciplinary, team-driven, and system-oriented educational opportunities provided to students (Barnard, 2007). Thus, meaningful research endeavors and educational experiences occur in an environment in which research and education fit together naturally, reinforces each other, and strengthens interactions among all actors, such as academic staffs, non-academic staffs, students, community, and industry.

Research practices and innovation can transform teachers’ teaching and learning experiences create confidence, promotes self-esteem, and releases motivating power during class contact. Research skills provide the opportunity for students to engage inquiry and critique, which is a pivotal experience in higher education institutions. It provides staff with a framework to develop a range of teaching or learning inputs, including up-to-date teaching materials, research-related projects, and workshops. In the realm of education, research is the cause of changes in curriculum development, evaluation, teaching methods, learning processes, strategies for assessment, testing the existing policy, theory, pedagogical practices, and exploring difficulties and problematic areas (Brew & Boud, 1995).

2.3 Teaching and scientific research in higher education institutions

Effective research skills and competencies are essential to help graduates negotiate the complexities of globalization in the 21st century, such as uncertainty, risk, knowledge society, and the information economy (Healey & Jenkins, 2009). Teaching in higher education requires higher-order thinking and creativity/innovation, which have positive values for graduates and the University. Thus, research and teaching higher education are two important mandates and major responsibilities of universities worldwide (Bridges, 2009). The tasks of conducting scientific research and teaching-learning activities distinguish universities from other teaching institutions (Shamai & Kifir, 2002). However, the question remains as to whether there are productive interactions between these functions and whether university academics practically link their teaching-learning processes to research activities and outcomes. Accordingly, Brew and Boud (1995) emphasized that there have been three different views on the types of relationships that exist between research and teaching at higher education institutions. (1). The strong integrationist view states that to be a good university teacher, you have to be an active researcher. (2).The integrationist view states that there are links between teaching and research at the departmental and institutional levels, but not at the individual level. (3).The independence view (unpopular) states that there is no causal relationship between the two. However, Brew and Boud (1995) argued that much of the relationships between research and teaching only on the outcomes view of research as publication. Moreover, they extended their views that

.......It is not teaching and research that are directly related, but that is related to learning. Focusing attention on research as learning is, shifting to a view of research as a process in which the researcher becomes more of a learner than a problem solver. Research is a productive and applicable process that links teaching and research in terms of what the teacher learns from it and uses this learning to improve practice rather than mere publications (Brew and Boud, 195, p.231).

This indicates that the status of improving the teaching-learning process using research findings and outputs is meager to determine the links between them. Teachers’ focus on publications will ultimately lead to the separation of research and teaching practices (Barnard, 2007). Likewise, there might be a situation when traditional “top-down model” of educational research or non-teacher researchers propose solutions to educational problems and the teacher implements with fidelity have not impacted on practice (Rubdy, 2008). Thus, using the top-down model, researchers often ask and answer questions that may not help practitioners deal with day-to-day problems in their specific contexts (Crookes, 1993). The research involves knowledge in practical situations and using knowledge-based practice to derive solutions to new problems, rather than internalizing the world of knowledge itself. Therefore, teaching, research, and innovative actions carefully aligned and implemented in the contexts of the HEIs under investigation to develop the professional and academic capital of graduates required in their occupation.

3. Research methods and materials

3.1. Research method

A study employed a mixed research method in which mixed model research involves mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches in all stages (formulation of the research questions, data collection procedures and research method, interpretation of the results, and final inferences) (Creswell, 2014).

3.2 Research method and design

A researcher used a mixed approach and concurrent triangulation design to conduct this particular study. Among the three common mixed designs, researchers used concurrent triangulation design (older name: convergent parallel) throughout the study (Creswell, 2003, 2014). This is less time -consuming because both qualitative and quantitative data collection occurs concurrently in the same visit to the field (Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2014). The researchers collected both quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and then, compared the two databases to determine whether there was convergence, difference, and combination (Creswell, 2014).

3.3 The sources of data

The target population of this study included both primary and secondary sources of data to obtain sufficient information concerning the links between teaching in higher education, research, and innovative actions. Thus, the primary sources of the data were research directors, college deans, school and department heads, instructors, and postgraduate (Master’s and PhD) students selected from all campuses of the sample University. In addition, a researcher collected secondary data from secondary sources, such as international literatures, policy documents, publications, legislations, and proclamations.

3.4 Sample size determination and sampling techniques

The sample size of each target population will be determined by believing that the ideal sample size is large enough to be selected economically in terms of both time and complexity, and small enough to be manageable and specific for analysis (Best and Kahn, 2006). In addition, a researcher made judgments based on four key factors in the sampling process. These are the sample size, representativeness, parameters of the sample, access to the sample, and sampling strategy to be used (Cohen et al., 2007).

A researcher used concurrent sampling process in which quantitative-probability and qualitative none probability purposeful sampling technique combined as independent sampling procedures and jointly used in this study (Creswell, 2014). A researcher selected samples from all campuses using convenience/availability sampling technique, and included all campuses and institutes. Then, a stratified sampling technique was used based on strata such as department, schools, qualification, and specialization, followed by simple random sampling techniques to select instructors and postgraduate students from their respective colleges, institutes, schools, and departments. For a large target population like instructors and postgraduate students, the sample size was determined using the Cochran (1977) formula:$\mathit{n}=\frac{\mathit{N}}{1+\mathit{N}{\left(\mathit{e}\right)}^2}$ where n is the sample, N is the population, e is the marginal error at the 95% confidence level, and p = 0.05. In addition, a researcher used purposive sampling technique while selecting a program and research directorates, college and associate deans, school directors and department heads based on criteria such as opportunities to provide adequate evidences about the study.

3.5. Data collection tools

Questionnaires, interviews, and document analyses were used together data. Creswell (2014) stated that employing multiple data collection instruments helps researchers to combine and strengthen the inadequacies and triangulation of data. A researcher-constructed questionnaire as the main data gathering instruments, unstructured interviews and document extraction checklists to enrich the data. The researchers preferred questionnaires because they are easier to handle and simple for respondents to answer within a short period (Koul, 2008). The researcher administered closed-ended and open-ended questionnaires to instructors and postgraduate students. Unstructured guiding questions were prepared for in-depth interviews with University administrators, and other stakeholders (directorates, deans, schools, and department heads) selected from each campus. Adane (2000) stated that semi-structured interviews are helpful because they tend to generate argued responses.

3.6 Validity and reliability of data collection tools

A researcher conducted a pilot test in one none sample university with 154 participants (71 instructors and 83 postgraduate students) to obtain insights for establishing appropriate design and procedures for the main study. Using a pilot test result, a researcher established the reliability of the items for a meaningful data collection process (Koul, 2008), and sampling adequacy by using KMO (.872 >. 600). A researcher checked the validity of the instruments through expert reading before conducting a pilot test. The reliability of the instruments for instructors and postgraduate students was found to be (α =.847 and .823 > .8000) respectively. Based on the comments given by expert reviewers and Cronbach’s alpha results, the researchers made some improvements on few items of questionnaires, interview guiding questions, and document analysis checklists, and conducted final data collection.

3.7. Methods of data analyses

Researchers have used both quantitative and qualitative methods (QUAN+QUAL) to analyze the data. Pertaining to this, Creswell (2014) stated that concurrent design helps to achieve what is termed triangulation, where a comparison between different databases occur for a better effect. A researcher mixed qualitative and quantitative data in the interpretation or discussion to merge the data. This means transforming one type of data into another type and comparing the results of the two databases side-by-side in discussions. Quantitative data were coded, tabulated, and analyzed using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics such as average mean, standard deviation, and independent sample t-test.

4. Results of study

A researcher analyzed quantitative data collected using closed-ended questionnaires quantitatively, and narrated qualitative data collected using open-ended questions, semi-structured interview, and document analysis. Therefore, this section presents the descriptive and inferential results obtained from the quantitative and qualitative (textual and contextual) data analysis. Therefore, enriched and interpreted the qualitative and quantitative findings simultaneously.

4.1. Background information of research participants

The descriptions of background information of research participants, such as gender, age, qualification, position in the career structure, and total years of experiences, as summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Background information of research participants

Variable	Description of characteristics	F in number	In percentage
Gender	Male	284	67.46
	Female	137	32.54
	Total	421	100.00
Qualification	BA/BSC/BED	150	35.63
	MA/MBA/MED/MSC	162	38.48
	Assistant Professors	71	16.87
	Associate professors	38	9.03
	Total	421	100.00
Total work Experiences	6–10 years	38	9.03
	11–15 years	144	34.20
	16–20 years	171	40.62
	21 years and above	68	16.15
	Total	421	100.00
Total Participants of the study	Academic staffs	207	49.17
	Postgraduate students	214	50.83
	Total	421	100.00

Table 1 shows that 207 (49.17%) respondents were academic staffs and 214 (50.83%) were postgraduate students. Regarding gender balance, 284 (67.46%) academic staff respondents were male, 137 (32.54%) were female. Qualification wise, the majority of participants, 162 (38.48%) were Masters’ degree holders, while 71 (16.87%) were Assistant Professors and 38 (9.03%) participants were Associate professors, and 150 (35.63%) participants were postgraduate students and first-degree holders. The data showed that the majority of the academics, 171 (40.62%) of sample respondents had 16–20 years of total experiences, 144 (34.20%) academic staffs who have 11–15 years of total experiences, 68 (16.15%) academic staffs with greater than 21 years of total experiences and only 38 (9.03%) respondents with less than or equal to 10 years of total experiences.

The findings indicated that the majority of the academic staffs were academically well-qualified and senior positions in their career hierarchies. From this, one can deduce that the sample academic staff profiles nearly meet the minimum requirements stipulated by the MoE policy (HERQA), which suggests that the University academic staff profile (50% Master’s and 50% PhD and above). Regarding to updating professional competencies required for 21^st century classrooms, Hawassa University provided smooth and collaborative intervention in capacity-building programs through HDP and CPD endeavors and organizational capacity enhancement (Harland, 2016; Pavel, 2012). Therefore, they can evaluate the alignments between teaching and innovative research actions in higher education institutions by identifying best practices and changes.

From 456 respondents, 421 participated in the study. The other, 35 participants, of which 28 did not return the questionnaires and seven, did not participate in the interviews. Thus, 198 academic staffs and 214 postgraduate students completed and returned 25-closed-ended 3-open-ended self-constructed questionnaires, and nine academic staffs’ members actively participated in 5-unstructured questions interviews.

4.2 Conceptualization of teaching, learning, research and innovative actions

Keys of determining cutting points: Average mean, M = 1.00–2.99- poor; 3.00- the ideal mean; 3.01–3.99- moderate; M = 4.00–5.00-very good

Table 2 item 1 reflects that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.869, M2 = 2.961, t (.689) =.332, p > .05). This suggests that the average means are higher than the ideal mean. The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents pertaining to the practices of aligning academic staffs’ research interests with teaching activities. Thus, both respondents were not satisfied with the efforts of aligning the two disciplines to ensure quality of instructional system. Item 2 summarizes that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.761, M2 = 2.817, t (.475) =.546, p > .05). This suggests that the average means of both academic staffs and graduate students were less than the ideal mean. The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Item 3 ensures that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.716, M2 = 2.669, t (.544) =.000, p > .05). This suggests that the average means of academic staffs and graduate students were less than the ideal mean. The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Both categories of respondents showed less satisfaction with academic freedom of teacher-researchers to shape curricula with up-to-date developments in their disciplines. Similarly, item 4 showed that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.716, M2 = 2.669, t (.544) =.000, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents indicating less satisfaction with the academic freedom of teacher-researchers to shape curricula with up-to-date developments in their disciplines.

Table 2. Conceptualization of teaching, learning, research and innovative actions

SN	Indicators of conceptualization of alignments	Academic staffs		Graduates		t-test	p-value
		M1	SD1	M2	SD2
1	Aligning academic staffs’ research interests with teaching activities	2.869	.6787	2.961	.6749	.689	.332
2	Allocating flexible times, funds and resources for research and teaching responsibility	2.761	.7188	2.817	.6331	.475	.546
3	Academic freedom of researcher-teachers to shape curricula with up-to-date developments	2.716	.7459	2.669	.7508	.544	.477
4	Responsibility of allocating teaching and research duties to junior and senior staffs	3.115	.4981	3.078	.4877	.781	.244
5	Developing benchmarking standards to monitor and evaluate enquiry-based learning.	2.575	.8610	2.581	.8215	.657	.364
Cumulative average M and SD		2.807	.7005	2.821	.6736	.677	.354

Note: P—value is accepted at 0.05 level of significance

Item 4 of indicates that the average means of respondents was (M1 = 3.115, M2 = 3.078, t (.871) =.244, p > .05). This indicates that the average mean scores of both the academic staffs and graduate students were higher than the ideal mean. An independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Item 5 indicates that the average means of the respondents were (M1 = 2.574, M2 = 2.579, t (.657) =.364, p > .05). This suggests that the average means of both the academic staffs and graduate students were less than the ideal mean. An independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. They did not appreciate the benchmarking standards developed to monitor and evaluate research and inquiry-based learning.

In addition, it was evidenced from the open-ended question that the perspectives about, conceptualization, and practices of integrating teaching and research outputs were not given attention or institutionalized (open-ended question, March, 2022).

Moreover, one of the interviewees, R5 clarified that

.....Though integrating teaching and research outputs are essential to improve quality of education in general and that of graduates in particular, more attention is given to teaching rather than undertaking research activities. According to my college then, the two disciplines are under implementation separately. No one was worrying whether the research output is recycled or not (R5; March 20, 2022).

Furthermore, R1 confirmed that

.....The legislation itself doesn’t give emphasis to integration of the two disciplines. The legislation of Ethiopian higher learning institutions set the framework of higher education proclamation that states “academic staff” means an employee of higher education institution who devotes 75% of his time to teaching and 25% of his time to research. This has made the academic staffs to give more time for teaching rather than being engaged in doing research, and resulted in poor nexus between teaching and research activities (R1; May 7, 2022).

The other interviewee, R8 extended the argument as

.....There is often integration between research outputs and teaching to some extents like using problem-solving methods, inquiry, laboratory and projects. The colleges or institutes announce for the academic staff to apply, compete and conduct interdisciplinary, disciplinary, internationally funded projects annually according to the schedule of the University. However, the equilibrium shifts in that there were no mutual relationships between teaching-learning process, research outputs, training and social services (R8; March 20, 2022).

… .In addition, the document analysis results show that the teaching-learning process, research, innovation, and technology transfer separately. However, some research results theoretically trace back to the quality of teaching and learning processes and technological innovation in higher education institutions, nothing talks about their integration, although the proclamation aligns them together (March, 2022).

These findings align with Clark’s (1997) finding that the modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning promotes quality of instruction. Thus, exposing students to research content and processes aids students in understanding knowledge construction within the discipline, enhances deep learning, and promotes confidence, networking, and employability (Walkington, 2015).

4.3 Research-based teaching and learning

Table 3 item 1 reflects that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 3. 279, M2 = 2.788, t (7.698) =.000, p < .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents on whether or not the existing postgraduate curricula/programs designed around enquiry-based activities. Similarly, item 8 granted that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 3.498, M2 = 2.789, t (9.557) =.000, p < .05) although independent sample t-test confirms that there was statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents whether or not students learn the skills to do research through inquiry-based curricular practices, active learning and meaningful learning of researcher-teachers. Likewise, item 2 summarizes that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.917, M2 = 2.887, t (.489) =.532, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. The related item no. 4 demonstrated that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.907, M2 = 2.898, t (.879) =.142, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents.

Table 3. Research-based teaching and learning

SN	Indicators of research-based teaching and learning	Academic staff		Graduates		t-test	p-value
		M1	SD1	M2	SD2
1	Postgraduate curricula revolve around enquiry-based activities to promote collaborative problem-solving activities, field trips and simulations.	3.279	.5781	2.788	.7143	7.698	.000
2	Researcher-teachers and students engage in enquiry process and teachers act as partners that are more experienced and students as learners.	2.917	.5822	2.887	.6518	.489	.532
3	Across my colleges, schools and departments, researcher-teachers work as partners on authentic research activities.	3.427	.6301	2.819	.6690	8.733	.000
4	The practices of different curricula focus on conducting research and enquiry as learning of students	2.907	.6599	2.898	.6981	.879	.142
5	Research process completes with replicating dissemination of practices; mini-conference, posters, panel discussion and publications.	3.091	.6107	3.066	.5597	.812	.209
6	Students to read abstracts or media reports on research outputs to publicize with positions and arguments at the cutting edges of their disciplines	2.882	.7108	2.895	.6982	2.117	.087
7	The researcher-teachers are autonomous to be engaged in critical reflection, enquiry into their own teaching and learning approaches.	3.218	.5901	3.112	.6300	.477	.544
8	Students learn the skills to do research through inquiry-based curricular practices, active learning and meaningful learning of researcher-teachers.	3.498	.6549	2.789	.5578	9.557	0.000
Cumulative average M and SD		3.092	.6271	2.907	.6474	.556	.465

Note: P-value is accepted at 0.05 level of significance

Item 3 of the same table ensures that the average means of the respondents were (M1 = 3.427, M2 = 2.847, t (8.733) =.000, p < .05). An independent sample t-test confirmed that there was statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents pertaining to researcher-teachers’ work as partners in authentic research activities. Moreover, Item 5 showed that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 3.091, M2 = 3.066, t (.812) =.209, p > .05). An independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Thus, a researcher assessed the completion of research process in ways that disseminate best practices, mini-conferences, posters, panel discussions, and publications. Item 6 reveals that the average means of the respondents were (M1 = 2.875, M2 = 2.895, t (2.117) =.087, p > .05). An independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. The respondents were less likely to that professional experiences direct student to read abstracts or media reports on research outputs to publicize positions and arguments at the cutting edges of their disciplines. Item 7 summarizes that the average means of the respondents were (M1 = 3.218, M2 = 3.112, t (.447) =.544, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents regarding to researcher-teachers’ academic autonomy.

Additionally, one of the interviewees, R1 commented that

No one was initiated to develop research-based curricula to ensure the nexus between teaching and research. The instructional materials are usually looks like learner-centered but they do not assist learners to integrate research-based knowledge and teaching learning processes which entirely needs a focus on inquiry-based activities. Therefore, she stated that there were inadequate understanding and implementation of research-informed instructional practices at both graduate and undergraduate levels (R1; May 17, 2022).

Similarly, one of the interviewees, R9 suggested that

......Both academic staffs and postgraduate students participate in spontaneous to-and-fro movement in teaching, research and community services to ensure quality of education and achieve the third mission as well. I think, most of the time the implementation of teaching-learning process occurred theoretically without the support of projects. Individual staff needs research competencies and understanding to support students involved in learning through some form of research activities or inquires (R9, April 28, 2022).

… . Furthermore, the analysis of policy document results showed that higher education institutions are expected to implement research-based teaching to solve a country’s economic, social, and cultural problems, and maintain quality of education in general, and that of graduates, in particular, to contribute to the sustainable development of a country (March, 2022).

Therefore, the findings are linking with by the findings that while the research has certainly shaped and in effect endorses our focus on the curriculum, it does leave open and uncertain the extent to which organizations need a research presence (Gray et al., 2013).

4.4 Research-Informed teaching, learning, and teaching-influenced research

Table 4 item 1 reflects that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.868, M2 = 2.769, t (.456) =.565, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Likely, item 2 summarizes that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.698, M2 = 3.109, t (4.283) =.000, p < .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents pertaining to the efforts of researcher-teachers to develop and enhance research processes and outcomes on the bases of their engagements in teaching and research activities. Item 3 ensures that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.787, M2 = 3.218, t (3.985) =.000, p < .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents whether or not research-informed teaching is critically important both for and beyond the students’ experiences; practices result towards teaching and research excellence. Moreover, item 4 shows that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 3.357, M2 = 3.208, t (.625) =.436, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents.

Table 4. Research-informed teaching, learning, and teaching-influenced research

SN	Indicators of research-informed teaching, learning and teaching-influenced research	Academic staff		Graduates		t-test	p-value
		M1	SD1	M2	SD2
1	Researcher-teachers participate in research-informed-teaching while planning, implementing and evaluating teaching and learning	2.868	.7122	2.769	.7513	.456	.565
2	The researcher-teachers develop and enhance research processes and outcomes based on their engagements in teaching and research activities.	2.698	.7608	3.109	.5691	4.283	.000
3	Research-informed teaching is critically important both for and beyond the students’ experiences and research excellence.	2.787	.7582	3.218	.7190	3.985	.000
4	The university works on creating knowledge, transmitting to students and societies via innovative actions.	3.357	.7109	3.208	.7593	.625	.436
Cumulative average M and SD		2.928	.7355	3.076	.7009	.621	.440

Note: P-value is accepted at 0.05 level of significance

Pertaining to the research informed teaching, R5 suggested that

......Obviously, higher education institutions are known by conducting research on top of training graduates in different disciplines. However, the approaches of training varies among the disciplines in that some are following research-informed approach but there are difficulties of conceptualizing and contextualizing to the local level. Yet, some disciplines are totally theory-based and you cannot see any practicalities at all (R5; April, 28, 2022)

Furthermore, the results of the document investigation regarding pedagogical praxis in higher education institutions showed that research-influenced teaching is essential for creating top young scholars, although the experiences of our country’s Universities showed that the shortage of resources takes the central spheres. Hence, learners were not influenced to learn through research-informed teaching although it is highly encouraging and productive (April, 2022).

4.5 The Effects of Integration of teaching- learning and research outputs

Table 5 item 1 demonstrates that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.958, M2 = 2.987, t (.422) =.535, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Item 2 summarizes that the average means of respondents were (M1 = 2.781, M2 = 2.811, t (.525) =.638, p > .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was no a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Moreover, item 3 shows that the means of respondents were (M1 = 2.457, M2 = 3.116, t (7.217) =.000, p < .05). The independent sample t-test confirms that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents on whether or not the nexus between teaching and research outputs resulted to technological innovation; improved learning technologies for distance education or online learning and e learning.

Table 5. The effects of integration of teaching, learning and research outputs

SN	The effects integration of teaching, learning and research outputs	Academic staff		Graduates		t-test	p-value
		M1	SD1	M2	SD2
1	The nexus between teaching, learning and research outputs enhanced pedagogical innovation; teaching and learning methods, assessment for learning	2.968	.5822	2.987	.6588	.422	.535
2	The nexus between teaching, learning and research findings improved educational innovation, curriculum improvement and professionalism of academic staffs	2.781	.7301	2.811	.7091	.525	.638
3	The nexus between teaching, learning and research outputs improved technological innovation and learning technologies	2.457	.8542	3.116	.6998	4.917	.000
4	The nexus between teaching, learning and research outputs improved administrative, innovation: management system and its properties	2.891	.6107	2.778	.6698	.831	.332
5	The nexus between teaching, learning and research findings improved ideological innovation; programs, public lectures, academic debates, sports and competitions	2.615	.6810	2.498	.6884	.922	.241
Cumulative average M and SD		2.742	.6916	2.838	.6852	.757	.406

Note: P-value is accepted at 0.05 level of significance

Item 4 showed that the average means of the respondents are (M1 = 2.891, M2 = 2.778, t (.831) =.332, p > .05). However, an independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents. Finally, Item 5 summarizes that the average means of the respondents was (M1 = 2.615, M2 = 2.498, t (.922) =.241, p > .05). An independent sample t-test confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents.

In strengthening the above findings, one of the interviewees, R7 explained that

......The balance between teaching-learning process and research outputs was very weak and by implication it resulted to low standards of quality of graduates. Instructors understood that the implementation of teaching-learning process occurred by instructors alone. Non- practitioners or external researchers conduct the research with having expectations of being implementing by instructors and students’ (R7; May 14, 2022).

Moreover, another participant, R6 suggested that

......The trends of department in integrating knowledge-based teaching-learning process were on-and-off depending on the thematic and financial phenomenon of the university. It was impossible to play your roles and responsibilities without sufficient resources like human, material and financial resources. The trends of conducting research in my college was primarily not to improve teaching-learning process and it was for community service as the purpose of the funder but many findings were shelved except few findings which were implemented via professional training. Occasionally, academicians usually conduct researches for academic promotion and fulfillment of their degrees from the side of students (R6 ; May 15, 2022).

Thus, cultivating ownership in communities of universities and other key stakeholders for quality issues is an effective method that fully contributes to different innovations in higher education institutions (Wariyo, 2020).

4.6. Findings and discussion

Based on the mixed data collection procedures, a researcher identified the following findings. These are:

1. The integration of research activities with teaching and learning processes promotes quality of instruction when students hands-on and minds-on research contents and processes, which leads them towards knowledge construction within the discipline, enhances deep learning, and promotes confidence, networking, and ensues employability. However, there were inadequate conceptualization and contextualization practices of aligning teaching research outputs and innovative actions in HwU. The cumulative average means and standard deviations, of academic staffs and postgraduate students were less than the ideal mean.

2. HwU practiced research-based teaching moderately although some professional concerns like inquiry-based curricular practices, active learning and meaningful learning of researcher-teachers required further improvements. The cumulative average means and standard deviations of the academic staffs and postgraduates were near the ideal mean. The instructional materials were learner-centered, but they did not assist learners in integrating research-based knowledge and inquiry-based teaching-learning processes.

3. HwU practiced research and teaching-influenced research moderately. The cumulative average means of respondents were near the ideal mean. Although Hawassa University encourages researchers to publish articles in reputable journals, they were doing research only for the purpose of academic promotion and fulfillment of degrees.

4. The effects of integration of teaching, research, and innovative actions did not significantly contribute to technological, administrative, instructional, and pedagogical innovations. The cumulative average means and standard deviation of academic staffs and postgraduate students were less than the ideal mean.

5. International literature suggests that 80% of knowledge from informal education, and only 20% of knowledge from formal education. However, the academic staffs and postgraduate students of higher education institutions did not use their time effectively for both teaching and research works.

6. Although the nexuses between teaching, learning, research, technological, and pedagogical innovation strengthens and realizes the generation of new knowledge and transfers it to students and wider communities were loose, they have paramount importance to improve and contribute to ensuring sustainable development goal (SDG4) i.e ensuring quality of education.

5.1. Conclusions

The study concluded that conceptualization and contextualization of the nexus between teaching, learning, research and innovative actions in higher education institutions are important to promote students’ knowledge construction, deep learning and self-confidence. This practice calls for collaborative participation of academic staffs and postgraduates students in the integration of teaching, learning, research and community services to improve their academic and professional capital. In addition, it is important for instructors to use research-informed and research-based teaching and learning strategies while planning, implementing and evaluating their instruction. These practices are indispensable to produce competent graduates with critical thinking, originality, and creativity through construction of large pools of knowledge based on inquiry, research, projects, field trips, laboratory and findings of study as inputs and outputs.

5.2. Recommendations

A researcher forwarded the following feasible suggestions for practice. These are:

1. The alignments of teaching, learning, research, and innovative actions were poorly conceptualized and contextualized. Therefore, concerned bodies should make awareness creation training, seminars, public lectures, and workshops to modernize research-informed and based teaching in higher education institutions.

2. The practical experiences should direct students read abstracts or media reports on research outputs to publicize positions and arguments at the cutting edges of their disciplines. Academic staffs and postgraduates should implement spontaneous to-and-fro movement in teaching, learning, research innovation, and community services to ensure quality of education to address sustainable development goal 4.

3. The awareness, willingness and motivation of some graduate students and instructors to exercise inquiry-based activities in instructional practices were negligible. Researcher/teachers should participate in research-informed teaching while planning, implementing, and evaluating their teaching and learning. Thus, the nexus between teaching, learning, research and innovative actions should contribute to improving learning technologies, managerial, ideological, instructional and pedagogical innovations.

4. Higher education institutions in Ethiopia should develop a culture of conducting graduate tracer studies/surveys to determine the profiles of graduates such as their academic standings, employment status, and employers’ satisfaction. The results of tracer studies help strengthen the nexus between teaching, learning, research, and innovative action in higher education institutions.

5. To ensure the effectiveness of teaching, learning, research, and innovative actions in HEIs, research directorates, educational leaders, instructors, and graduate students should develop commitment and possibilities in ensuring the linkage between research-based knowledge and inquiry-based teaching and learning processes.

6. Limitation of the Study

Despite the strong contributions of the current study in informing an integrated model for higher education learning institutions‘ mission accomplishment through combined effects of teaching, learning, research and innovation, it would have been better follow interventions where effective competences occur in creating special focus on larger magnitude of entities in Universities.

List of abbreviations

Table

CPD	Continuous Professional Development
ETP	Education and Training Policy
FDRE	Federal Republic of Ethiopia
HDP	Higher Diploma Program
HEIs’	Higher Education Institutions
HERQA	Higher Education Relevance and Quality Assurance
KMO	Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
MoE	Ministry of Education

Availability of data and materials

The data used to support the findings of this study have been included in the revised manuscript. The authors can provide raw data on request.

Acknowledgments

The researchers acknowledge the primary sources of data for the willingness they have shown while providing responses during the preliminary and main studies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research article publication.