The effectiveness of the teaching–research nexus in facilitating student learning

Abstract

The modern university may arguably be characterised by a steadfast belief in the mutually beneficial relationship between the teaching and research activities of its academics. Quantitative studies however have repeatedly demonstrated negative or zero correlation between the various teaching and research measures employed at the individual academic level. Very few investigations contributing to the teaching–research nexus debate have examined the student perspective. The present study therefore looked at the influence of the teaching–research nexus in facilitating student learning. The results of a survey and follow-up discussion groups conducted as part of the present investigation appear to indicate that there is limited benefit to the student at the tangible, tacit or global level of the teaching and research relationship. There is also no support for the premise that active research involvement of an academic is a requirement for good teaching. The central conclusion of the study is in fact that the teaching and research activities of academics should be treated as unrelated entities. Although it is necessary and beneficial to retain an effective teaching–research nexus at the institutional and departmental levels, students do not appear to benefit greatly from individual teaching staff involvement in research activities. At an individual level, research and teaching activities compete for limited time and resources with little benefit of the transference between these reported as evident by students.

Keywords:

• teaching–research nexus
• student perception
• student learning
• teaching quality

Introduction

It is generally agreed that the defining characteristic of the contemporary university is a strong relationship between research and teaching (see, for example, the work by Clark (1997) and Crittenden (1997)). The purported mutually beneficial relation between teaching and research is often argued to be the distinguishing feature delineating universities from pure research organisations and vocational training institutions (Neumann 1994). The Bradley report effectively supported such a view by stressing the need for university system wide support for the teaching–research nexus (TRN) in an effort to counter research concentration in elite institutions (Slattery 2009). As a result of this widespread belief, academics at Australian universities are generally expected to be active researchers and active teachers.

The teaching research nexus can manifest in a number of forms at universities including research-led teaching, enquiry-based learning, pedagogic research, teaching-led research and in students learning to do research. The commonly employed rationale in support of the teaching–research nexus at universities is that teaching and research are so mutually reinforcing that they must occur simultaneously (Marsh & Hattie 2002). The argument supporting the claim that research should contribute to teaching, centres on the fact that knowledge generated through research forms the basis of the content of teaching. Educators who are active researchers are well positioned to report the latest technological advances in their field and their first-hand experience also provides authenticity to the material presented. Benefits to students of a strong teaching–research nexus are reported (Krause et al. 2008) to be a deepening of students' understanding of the knowledge bases of disciplines, including the research methods adopted in particular fields; building of students' academic capabilities and improving their lifelong learning ability; development of students' capacity to conduct research and development of students' capacity for independent learning. The premise that teaching should inform research activities is less clear. The teaching activities undertaken may assist a researcher to clarify their current research or identify new research directions through student comments and questions.

Qualitative studies (for example, the investigations by Jensen 1998, Neumann 1992, Robertson & Bond 2001, Rowland 1996, Smeby 1998) examining academic staff perceptions, typically report a steadfast faith in the existence and effectiveness of a mutually beneficial relationship between research and teaching at the individual academic level. Hattie & Marsh (1996) reported that 90% of academics claimed that it is essential to be an active researcher in order to be a good university teacher. Despite this commonly accepted belief in the value of the teaching–research nexus, the numerous quantitative studies examining the correlation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness report little or no relationship (see, for example, Brew & Boud 1995, Feldman 1987, Hattie & Marsh 1996, Robertson & Bond 2005). The lack of quantitative investigations supporting the teaching–research nexus led Ramsden & Moses (1992, p276) to state that “it is lamentable that nearly every conclusion about the compatibility between research and teaching within the British and Australian systems has been reached entirely through anecdote and informal observation”. The work by Boyd et al. (2012) for example, strongly advocates, without justification of its position that all academics should aim to be TRN scholars. It contains a series of anecdotes designed to inspire ‘TRN-inexperienced’ academics to remove any impediments and join the TRN bandwagon. Despite the vast body of evidence to the contrary, regarding the purported benefits at the individual academic level, the ‘mythical teaching–research nexus’ as described by Slattery (2009) endures.

Fox (1992) suggested that rather than complementary, the teaching and research activities conducted by academics at universities are antagonistic, competing for time and resources. This view is supported by the findings of the study by Ramsden & Moses (1992) which concluded that an academic’s commitment to teaching and the ratings of their teaching quality decreased with increasing numbers of publications. Hattie & Marsh (1996) argued the same point in terms of the scarcity model, examining the dimensions of time, energy and commitment. It is the logical conclusion of this analysis that at best, the correlation between teaching and research should be zero. As stated by Newman (1976, p10) in The Idea of a University well over a century ago, “to discover and to teach are distinct functions; they are also distinct gifts and are not commonly found united in the same person. He too, who spends his day in dispensing his existing knowledge to all comers is unlikely to have either leisure or energy to acquire new.”

It has also been suggested that the motivation and reward structures that support teaching and research activities at universities might be in opposition. In examining these, Barnett (1992) concluded that teaching and research are ‘inescapably incompatible’. As stated by Lloyd (2009), “when you co-locate teaching and research, you reduce your efficiency in producing both”. There does not appear to be a benefit to the individual or the department for academics to be simultaneously active in teaching and research (Ramsden & Moses 1992). In light of the reported views by academics overwhelmingly rating the relative importance and institutional support in favour of their research activities (Edwards et al. 2010) it is not surprising that teaching contributions suffer. Ramsden & Moses (1992, p274) stated that: “…these two crucial activities are essentially separate endeavours that just happen to occur in the same place. As far as the individual academic is concerned, there is no causal relation, no essential congruence”. In light of this finding, they proposed what they called a weak version of the teaching–research nexus. This weaker version suggests that it is only necessary for academics to be in a strong research department in order to facilitate their teaching effectiveness.

A notably under-investigated aspect of the teaching–research nexus is the impact this has on student learning. Only a few studies have examined the student perspective or the learning–teaching–research nexus as it is aptly described. One of these is the study by Neumann (1994) where interviews were conducted with 28 students to ascertain their perception of the presence of the teaching–research nexus. Most students in this study were able to identify the teaching–research relationship at work in academic staff, however no mention was made as to the effect this had on learning. It is noteworthy that not all active researchers were identified as good teachers by the students involved in this study. This study identified several influencing factors on the perceived benefit of the teaching–research nexus such as the nature of the discipline, the type and purpose of the course, the ability and motivation of the student and opportunity for research interaction. The academic level of the students, for example, was found to be positively correlated to their perception and awareness of the teaching–research nexus. The study by Jenkins et al. (1998) noted perceived student disadvantages from teaching staff involvement in research and cited as a central conclusion that students did not consider themselves stakeholders in the research conducted by academics.

As a framework for examining the impact of the teaching–research nexus on student learning, Neumann (1992) suggested three levels at which the relationship between teaching and research may be observed to operate. The first of these is the tangible level, where advanced knowledge gained from research is disseminated to students in the classroom or perhaps where students are directly involved in this research. The tangible level is the most readily discernible mode at which the teaching–research nexus may operate to provide benefits to student learning. The second level proposed by Neumann (1992) is the intangible or tacit level. At this level, the researcher imparts their approaches and attitudes regarding research to students. This level of the teaching–research nexus may be evident in such things as the facility of the research undertaken by the lecturer to motivate students to learn. The third level at which the teaching–research nexus may be evident to support and benefit student learning is the global level. Design of course structure and curriculum content around the research activities of the teaching staff is the primary mechanism by which this level may be argued to impact student learning. Using this tri-level framework, the present study aimed to examine the influence and effectiveness of the teaching–research nexus in facilitating the development of student skills. Since many prior papers have covered the teaching staff and institutional perspectives, the intent of this paper is to provide the student voice in this discussion.

Methodology

The study was conducted by sampling student perspectives from those undertaking a four year undergraduate mechanical engineering degree or a two year postgraduate Engineering Masters by coursework program containing a research component. The undergraduate degree culminates in a final year thesis project under the direct supervision of an academic staff member. The benefit of the teaching–research nexus in developing student skills should be most evident at the latter stages of the undergraduate mechanical engineering degree or during postgraduate coursework studies where research related interaction with academic staff are more common. The present study therefore examined undergraduate level 4 and Masters by coursework students only. All students were enrolled in mechanical engineering majors. Combined degree students were not excluded from the study. A survey was administered to all study participants. At the commencement of the survey, the teaching–research nexus was defined and briefly discussed. The survey contained 15 five-point response scale questions and two open ended questions. Students were instructed to respond to questions by considering their general perception regarding all the academic staff they had encountered in a teaching capacity throughout their university experience. The questions were designed to investigate six aspects of student perceptions of the teaching–research nexus:

1. Student awareness of the research activities of teaching staff.

2. Student perception of teaching and research staff priorities.

3. Tangible effects of the teaching–research nexus on student learning.

4. Tacit effects of the teaching–research nexus on student learning.

5. Student perceptions of the global influence of the teaching–research nexus on the courses of study offered.

6. Student opinion of the relative importance of the teaching ability, research profiles, scholarship and industry experience of the teaching staff.

The two open-ended questions raised in the survey were:

1. List what you believe are the three most important characteristics of a good University teacher.

2. Please provide additional comments regarding your experiences of research and teaching at University.

The first of these open-ended questions was processed by identifying common response themes. The second was useful in obtaining more detailed feedback which was later employed to investigate various issues in depth during follow-up discussion groups. All surveys were administered in class and based on approximate attendances the survey response rates were near 95%. A total of 127 completed survey forms were collected and 38 students participated in the post-survey discussions. The survey sample group demographic breakdown was 84.3% male (15.7% female), 86.6% undergraduate (13.4% postgraduate) and 85.0% Australian (15% international) students. The corresponding breakdown for the discussion groups were 89.5% male, 92.1% undergraduate and 89.5% Australian participants.

Results and Discussion

From the survey results presented in Table 1 it is clear that students are very aware of the research role of academics. It is somewhat surprising however to find that some students at Masters and undergraduate academic level 4 still do not have any insight into the dual role of most engineering academics. When it comes to student perception of their lecturers’ priorities, a slight majority indicated that they feel their lecturers prefer to spend their time researching rather than teaching. During the post-survey discussions it became clear that there was significant variation of student perception of priorities between individual academics. Some academics were notably despised for their preference for research to the detriment of their teaching quality. As one student stated (names removed of course), “Academic A and Academic B particularly seem to be not at all interested in students and are too focussed on research” and “when it is clear that a lecturer cares more about their research than teaching students the material I feel like my money and time are wasted on the class”.

Table 1 Student awareness of the research activities of the teaching staff and their perception of teaching and research staff priorities

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Not Applicable	Mean score (/5)
Student awareness of research activities
I am aware that my lecturers undertake research as part of their job	3.9%	5.5%	12.6%	31.5%	46.5%	0%	4.1
I am aware of my lecturers’ particular fields of research	15.0%	17.3%	39.4%	22.0%	6.3%	0%	2.9
Perception of Lecturer priorities
My lecturers appear to prefer to spend their time on research rather than teaching related activities	4.7%	22.8%	28.3%	37.8%	6.3%	0%	3.2

Students do not in general appear to be well informed regarding the specific research activities undertaken by their lecturing staff. Students often indicated that they had only rudimentary conception of the field of research of their lecturers. Some assumed that if the lecturer were permitted to teach the material, then they must be a demonstrated expert in this field either through research or industry experience. The poor awareness by their students of the research fields of lecturers does not bear well upon the effectiveness of the tangible teaching–research nexus level in practice.

Responses to the survey questions investigating the effectiveness of the teaching–research nexus at the tangible, intangible and global levels of this relationship are presented in Table 2. As expected from the lack of awareness of the specific fields of research of their teaching staff, the tangible influence of the teaching–research nexus is at best neutral. The survey statements regarding the discussion of research results in class and the associated learning and student involvement in staff research were rated with a mean score indicating slight overall disagreement. During the discussions following the survey, a large number of students disclosed that they could not recall many occasions where the lecturer’s own research work was discussed and even fewer occasions where this proved to be a useful contributor to learning.

Table 2 Student perceptions of the tangible, tacit and global effects of the teaching–research nexus (n=127)

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Not Applicable	Mean score
Tangible effects of the teaching–research nexus
My lecturers regularly discuss their research findings while teaching subjects	16.5%	37.8%	26.8%	14.2%	4.7%	0%	2.5
I have learnt a lot from the research conducted by my lecturers	11.0%	47.2%	8.7%	25.2%	7.9%	0%	2.7
I have been involved in the research conducted by my lecturers	23.6%	37.8%	14.2%	18.1%	3.9%	2.4%	2.4
Tacit effects of the teaching–research nexus
I am motivated to learn by the research conducted by my lecturers	4.7%	16.5%	49.6%	22.8%	4.7%	1.6%	3.1
I understand how my lecturers conduct their research	13.4%	63.8%	15.0%	7.9%	0.0%	0%	2.2
Global influence of the teaching–research nexus
My lecturers design subjects around their fields of research expertise	24.4%	33.1%	33.1%	5.5%	3.9%	0%	2.3

A group of study participants were however very supportive of the research activities of their lecturers. A similar sub-group was identified in the study by Guerin & Ranasinghe (2010) where many students undertaking doctoral study linked their decision to undertake research with their undergraduate exposure to the research activities of their lecturers. This minority in the study strongly advocated the importance of the research profiles of their teaching staff. They argued their position from an institutional recognition perspective, stating that the research prominence of the institution reflected on the quality of the degree. They also argued more directly that they saw the research profile of the teaching staff as providing the authority on a particular subject. As one participant stated, “I want a lecturer that has been or is involved in applicable research to provide practical examples to back up the theory”. It is believed that this group was responsible for the slightly positive mean response to the statement that the research conducted by their lecturers motivated them to learn. The other survey question elucidating the effect of the tacit teaching–research relationship on student learning, regarding student understanding of the research approaches adopted by their teachers, rated poorly.

Globally, the impact of the teaching–research nexus was generally not observed by students. Some students indicated a mild awareness that the curriculum and courses were influenced by the research activities of staff but most, arguably so in light of the existence of a single accreditation body, assumed that the content and structure of engineering degrees were relatively uniform across institutions.

Student opinions of the relative importance of the teaching ability, research profiles, scholarship and industry experience of teaching staff are presented in Table 3. The overwhelming majority of students surveyed believed that the teaching ability of their lecturers is more important than their research profile. In contrast, the statement that their lecturers’ research roles benefit their teaching was rated neutral. Students also indicated that they preferred their lecturers to be at the forefront of teaching theory and practice, rather than at the forefront of their particular research fields (with mean scores of 3.9 and 2.7 out of 5 respectively). The survey results also show that scholarship covering a broad range of research of interest in a particular subject, and industry experience are valued more highly by students than specialised research. Supporting this result, students commonly reported in the post-survey discussions that “teachers with a strong industry background are better to listen to and more interesting”.

Table 3 Student opinion of the relative importance of the teaching ability, research profiles, scholarship and industry experience of teaching staff (n=127)

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Not Applicable	Mean score
Teaching and research
I believe that the teaching ability of my lecturers is more important than their research profiles	0.0%	5.5%	14.2%	19.7%	60.6%	0%	4.4
I believe that my lecturers’ research roles are beneficial to their effectiveness as teachers	1.6%	18.1%	46.5%	27.6%	2.4%	3.9%	3.1
I believe that it is important for my lecturers to be at the forefront of technical research in their particular field	14.2%	23.6%	42.5%	14.2%	5.5%	0%	2.7
I believe that it is important for my lecturers to be at the forefront in the field of teaching theory and practice	0.0%	13.4%	10.2%	52.0%	23.6%	0.8%	3.9
Scholarship, industry experience and research
I believe that it is important for my lecturers to be familiar with all current research and practice covered in a subject	4.7%	11.8%	19.7%	50.4%	13.4%	0%	3.6
I value my lectures’ industry experience more than their experience in fundamental research	0.0%	9.4%	12.6%	53.5%	24.4%	0%	3.9

Regarding student perceptions of the most important characteristics of a good university teacher, six common response themes (listed below in decreasing order of the frequency they were reported) were identified from the 297 responses received for the question. The prevalence of these responses in the sample group studied is presented in Table 4. Some students listed more or less than three characteristics. All responses were included and the order they were presented in by the student was not considered.

1. Communication ability

2. Subject knowledge

3. Interest in student learning

4. Enthusiasm

5. Organisational skills

6. Approachability

Table 4 Categorised student ratings of the most important characteristics of a good university teacher

Teacher characteristic category	Student responses	%
Communication ability	89	30.0
Subject knowledge	54	18.2
Interest in student learning	51	17.2
Enthusiasm	47	15.8
Organisational skills	37	12.5
Approachability	9	3.0
Other	10	3.4

Communication ability was cited most often as the most important characteristic of a good university teacher. As one student responded in the survey, “I have found that it is far more important for the teacher to be able to reach a class well rather than have a vast knowledge on the topic but is unable to communicate it to the class”. This sentiment was reflected frequently throughout the post-survey discussions. Many discussion group participants agreed with the statement by one student that “poor communication plays a big role in poor student learning”. Internationalisation of the teaching staff and consequent communication problems were also raised repeatedly in both the survey and discussions leading one Australian student to exclaim “enough of the international lecturer or researchers who can’t speak English or has an impossible accent!”

Although the good university teacher qualities cited by students are not mutually exclusive to the skill sets characterising either the research or teaching roles, most of these are arguably more inherently and intrinsically linked with the teaching roles of academic staff. Only one of the six good university teacher characteristics categories identified, namely ‘subject knowledge’, may be directly related to the research activities of the academic. It may be equally well reasoned however that this knowledge is generally attained predominantly through scholarship, rather than original research. The tendency for academic staff to teach a range of subjects beyond their immediate field of research lends weight to this premise. Organisational skills and enthusiasm may also be indirectly attributed to the research activities of teaching staff but are more likely to be individual characteristics, no more or less likely to be present in active researchers or teachers. In agreement with the findings by Feldman (1987), the characteristics of good university teachers identified by students do not appear to support the hypothesis that active research is a requirement for good teaching.

The good teacher characteristic ‘interest in student learning’ was also identified by a large number of students as a very important quality for university educators. There were a number of study participants who recalled teaching experiences where there was little effort or interest on the part of the academic to assist student learning beyond the perceived obligatory well prepared and well delivered lecture presentation. Although such presentations would likely be well received at any conference, students relayed that there appeared to be little interest or ability in facilitating student learning. As one student recalled, “I find that there are some teachers and lecturers who are extremely capable in their area of expertise but are unable to understand when students don’t understand”.

To encourage the most effective use of an academic’s time and effort invested in facilitating student learning and skill development it would appear that teaching staff should not be overly concerned with the research aspects of the position. Students, although aware of some of these research activities, do not on the whole appear to benefit greatly from teaching staff participation in these. This does not mean that significant research activity should not occur at universities. Research excellence is an essential component of a successful university. Rather, when considering student learning, teaching and research are best perceived as separate, unrelated entities. There are volumes of quantitative data demonstrating at best no advantage of the teaching–research nexus to the individual academic. There also appears to be limited perceived benefit to the student from active research involvement by their teaching staff. In light of these findings and the targets to significantly increase the numbers of students completing higher education degrees with accompanying workload increases, further legitimises teaching only appointments as a useful and necessary university career path.

It is noteworthy that when the present study was advertised, students were eager to contribute to the debate regarding the teaching and research activities of the teaching staff. Volunteers for the study and discussion groups were plentiful. Strong opinions were voiced during the post-survey discussions regarding teaching quality and the link, if any, with the research status of lecturing staff. Students clearly felt strongly invested in the discussion surrounding the teaching–research nexus and teaching quality in general. A common theme expressed was that they did not feel their opinion was considered or valued. One student desperately exclaimed that academics should “listen to teacher assessment surveys!” Many students claimed that although much of what had been discussed in the post-survey groups had already been repeatedly relayed to lecturers through formal teaching evaluation channels, nothing ever seemed to change.

Conclusions

Suitable caution of course must be exercised regarding interpretation of the results in the present study in light of the sample size and representativeness of the wider engineering student population. The present study does however indicate that from the student perspective, the teaching–research nexus, at the tangible, intangible or global level, does not appear to have a significant influence on students’ perceived learning. Phase two of the present study will examine the effect of the tangible teaching–research nexus on learning utilising measures such as the SPQ to examine depth of learning, ILS to illuminate any learning style dependence and individual student performance in subject assessment items.

The present survey was administered to students studying in engineering courses. Of the many fields of enquiry available at university, engineering is one in which there exists a pressing need to keep abreast of the latest technological advances. The conclusion of the present study stating that the teaching–research nexus does not appear to have a significant influence on students’ perceived learning is therefore somewhat unexpected. Students generally indicated that they valued their lecturers’ teaching knowledge and abilities more than their research expertise.

The characteristics of good university teachers identified by students in the present study do not appear to support the premise that active research is a requirement for good teaching. Apart from subject knowledge, which students appear to indicate they would prefer to receive through the academic’s scholarly endeavours and industry experience, the reported characteristics of a good teacher are arguably less intrinsically related to their research activities than their teaching roles. The characteristics students reported that they would most like to see in university teachers are first and foremost communication ability, followed by subject knowledge, interest in student learning, enthusiasm and organisational skills. A number of students also commented on the approachability of teaching staff as an important characteristic of a good university lecturer.

It is not the intention of this paper to degrade the need for a strong teaching–research model at the institutional or departmental level. Rather, the contention of this paper is that there needs to be greater support for a weak version of the teaching–research nexus. Hereby each individual academic is not expected to be a top researcher and teacher simultaneously. Instead, a balance of teaching and research contributions within departmental groups is sought thereby retaining the integrity and benefits of the teaching–research nexus at the institutional level. Within the framework of a weak teaching–research nexus model, teaching intensive career paths constitute a legitimate and effective contribution to the functioning of an academic department.

Acknowledgements

I thank all of the engineering students who participated in the present study. In particular I am grateful to the students who volunteered their time to provide their insights during the follow-up discussions. This work was primarily conducted under a University of Wollongong Educational Strategies Development Fund (ESDF) grant.