I wonder if the whole system needs an overhaul. There are those who love research and resent teaching, seeing their teaching duties as an imposition. There are others for whom teaching is a vocation and who would not want to pursue a purely research path. Why not allow academics to choose how much of either they want to do instead? Teaching is a vocation and takes very specific skills and dedication to do well (I know because I am one). As a student, I was subjected to many dreadful, incompetent or disinterested teachers, more so in HE than in any other sector. If anything, all it served to do was put me off of the subject. We have to ask ourselves what the point of universities are. If they are for undertaking important research and to teach and inspire, then we need to ensure there is excellence in each and realise that they are two separate, specialised fields. They are both incredibly important and neither should be privileged.
Hi
Both of them are correlated specifically if they occur in higher education level. College instructor can not be success without researching. Thank you so much for this question.
Liqaa
Dear Prof. Anirbid,
Research and teaching are a married couple in the higher institutional education society and it would be impossible to divorce them. Both teaching and research have quintessential roles that they play and they can't be compromised. The two are carefully pursued in world-class universities. However, teaching is tailored to research aimed at providing solutions to the challenges of mankind, thus, putting research a little higher above teaching. Best regards
Dickson Adom
I wonder if the whole system needs an overhaul. There are those who love research and resent teaching, seeing their teaching duties as an imposition. There are others for whom teaching is a vocation and who would not want to pursue a purely research path. Why not allow academics to choose how much of either they want to do instead? Teaching is a vocation and takes very specific skills and dedication to do well (I know because I am one). As a student, I was subjected to many dreadful, incompetent or disinterested teachers, more so in HE than in any other sector. If anything, all it served to do was put me off of the subject. We have to ask ourselves what the point of universities are. If they are for undertaking important research and to teach and inspire, then we need to ensure there is excellence in each and realise that they are two separate, specialised fields. They are both incredibly important and neither should be privileged.
Hello, it seems to me that teaching can not evolve without research, I think there is a close correlation between both processes.
In the UK there is now the Teaching Excellence Framework which was brought in partly to refocus universities to the importance to teaching. The focus among most world leading universities has been about research, with teaching becoming less of a priority as measurements of quality became more and more about research. Whether this will improve the quality of teaching or increase the focus is a moot point. Research must inform teaching, at least in leading universities. However, a sensible balance between the two seems to be progressive and thus encouraged.
I agree with Rachel as teaching is a vocation - however, there is also research-informed teaching that enables teachers or lecturers to be research active in developing their own learning and teaching practice. Utilising L&T pedagogy as a guide helps us as teachers/lecturers to be more effective and our skills, knowledge, expertise and personality plays a role in enhancing students' motivation and inspires them to learn about a topic. As the Head of Online with the University of Hertfordshire's Business School, the academic team (ie lecturers) that I work with, who have an interest in developing their own practice as well as knowledge of their topic, make the best lecturers. In my view, therefore, both teaching and research are the foundations of a great learning experience for our students. I have attached an article on L&T pedagogy and another on the role of a teacher, if anyone is interested.
Some good points from Karen here.
In my initial response, I didn't mean to imply that being a teacher meant not doing research. My framing of teaching as a specialised skill and a vocation, in as much as one has to be dedicated to the ethos of teaching, learning, and adult development in order to enjoy it and do it well, carries with it the implication that research into teaching and learning theory and praxis is an essential aspect of that.
Many researchers are naturally more interested in their specialist areas of study as opposed to research linked to teaching, which may mean that they have little time to or interest in developing their skills and understanding of teaching. It is perfectly understandable with the constant pressure to bring in research grants and to publish, that teaching is not a priority for those academics. We should remember that until recently, teacher training or qualifications were not required of HE lecturers, which speaks volumes about the extent to which teaching was valued in the sector.
My criticism is of the apparent undervaluing (at least until recently) of teaching in HE, perhaps because the return on investment is not seen in the same tangible way that research funding grants, publishing, and rankings are. On a positive note, there does seem to be a growing awareness that good teaching and attention to the personal as well as academic development of students brings short and longer term rewards to learners, universities, and society.
I guess my message is: value research and teaching excellence equally, improve teacher training, provide academics with plenty of support from people whose specialist subject is teaching, and take some of the funding/publishing pressure off of them so they can develop their teaching. For academics who really don't like teaching, allow them to give lectures rather than do classroom teaching and stick to publishing and managing post-docs instead.
Prima facie, for world class universities the old certainty and claim expressed by W. v. Humboldt is still valid: teaching and research have to be and are a unity. This means that high quality of research has to be accompanied by high quality of teaching. That is the ideal version. Why do most people who work in world class universities (mine is among the first 300 in most international rankings) and those who observe the practice in those universities end up with the conviction that research dominates teaching, that research is above teaching? I think that several factors have to be looked at. One factor refers to personal intrinsic motivation resp. interest of scientists towards teaching combined with the subjective perception of the individual abilities and competences to teach. The second factor is represented by the extrinsic motivation to teach resp. to do research which leads to the specific incentives to resp. benefits from research as well as teaching. Reputation, influence and power in the world of sciences, but also in the media and in politics stem from research performance and quality (measured by research grants, extra personal income, citations, impact factors, international cooperations, size of the research team a.s.f), much less from teaching performance and quality which is mostly only measured by local student ratings. A third factor is the size of the teaching load, the teaching content and method applied as well as the nearness to the research activities. As to the teaching load it makes a motivational and time related difference if you have to teach 4 to 5 courses per week (9 hours per week per semester as is compulsory at German universities) or 2 courses (4 hours a week) as I have experienced at Stanford and UBC Vancouver. Teaching 2 courses instead of 4 or 5 offers you more time for research and simultaneously allows you to invest more time and heart into teaching. Their performance resp. quality is likely to be higher than of the 4 or 5 courses. Another factor might be the content issue of teaching courses. In the US, in many scientific fields it is common to distinguish between introductory, intermediate and advanced courses. Scientists who are excellent researchers tend to prefer to teach advanced courses which usually are closely related to their research interests. One might assume that their teaching motivation and the respective involvement is higher when they teach advanced courses rather than introductory or intermediate courses. A last factor I want to mention refers to the teaching method. Teaching can happen in very different settings, the range goes from one-way communication by means of lectures via seminars, project-like forms of settings, blended learnig activities and inverted classroom modes up to learning by research resp. researching learning. Again, scientists who are strongly dedicated to research will tend to prefer teaching modes which allow to embed research activities in their teaching settings and to lead their students as quick as possible to the research front of their field. In Germany, since a few years higher education politics as well as the leadership of the universities have started to offer incentives and steps to improve the quality of teaching and learning, however it is an open question whether these measures will be able to overcome the incentive bias in favor of research.
I completely agree with Rachel. I think that no way could be said that one is more important than another. Both are fundamental, and must work closely together, -like pieces of a puzzle- to be able to create the "big figure" we want: new knowledge. Although is not impossible, it is difficult that a single person can perform both tasks extraordinarily well at the same time. That’s why I believe it would be extremely important that universities can generate collaborative work teams, where excellent teachers and excellent researchers can be equally considered, and could work together to be able to generate and transfer new valuable knowledge.
I suggest taking a look at research by John Hattie and Herbert Marsh - in short they found no correlation between teaching ability and research ability.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170652
The latest developments in University education is involving undergraduates in research work to foster and engage students on an early age. This trends is winning grounds with time especially in programs which encourage student engagement with community needs, irrespective of the university policy to publish or perish, or if it is only directed at teaching. Then, both the instructors and the students will be engaged in something like blended education but this time not blended with technology rather with research skills and activities.
Where do you see yourself, in teaching or in researching?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_do_you_see_yourself_in_teaching_or_in_researching?view=5991724cdc332d05f623fb63#5991d1af3d7f4bb1e33e2fe8 [accessed Aug 14, 2017].
good greeting:
Teaching and research is an integrated process. Effective teaching is an effective research. The issue is symbiotic, and the effectiveness is increased by finding a relationship formula for self-development of teaching and research.
Research is a fundamental part of the university enterprise, serving the public good, and that research and teaching are inextricably linked. After all, if we’re not engaged in the study of what we teach, then all we can do is repeat what we learned a long time ago.
Teaching is always prime responsibility in any University, which is enriched with research.
As a graduate school professor, my view is that teaching is above research. Students must have a working knowledge as well as equip them with the techniques, strategies skills, expertise then develop and implement/ apply in writing a formal research paper.
"World class universities" often have admission standards so selective that the students in their classes arrive prepared to learn at a college level, and they can learn in spite of mediocre teachers. In fact, if you gave them full access to the library and keys to the labs, they probably would do just fine. World class university students will survive without "world class teachers," although they probably will be further advantaged by having them.
The average state university admits many students (not all, for sure) who, because of socioeconomic disadvantages, are unprepared to learn at a college level. They have no idea what it means to become educated. In state universities, the quality of teaching needs to be "world class" because the worst disservice occurs when a student receives a degree without receiving an education. Students who fall into this disservice are many. They don't know how to demand an education because they don't even know that becoming educated differs greatly from just learning facts and gaining some workplace skills.
Nobody can give what he/she does not have. Therefore, for anyone to embark on teaching, he/she must have been groomed through research activities. No matter how infinitesimal a research might be, it is the product of researchers that are being used for teaching. My submission, therefore, is that both are very essential but in a world-class University, research is above teaching.
Both are essential. You teach what you have searched and searched to gain more to improve teaching. Therefore, In a world class University teaching and research are both useful.
Hello
Both of them are correlated with each other. Good teaching is the result of researching. And researching based on the ideas derived from teaching.
Liqaa
Modren programs of univ. depend on projects to improve teaching process therefore coummunity problems taken in the considerartion
Right now according to the University Ranking research is more important than teaching which is logical for me. Best regards.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching