Many university colleagues point out that the current university focuses more on its visibility than on teaching, more on research and publication than on the results of teaching.
All substantive processes should be well assembled, but still: what is the trend?
Traditionally, the main mission of educational establishments is teaching and preparing the students to satisfy the needs of the community to which they belong. However, academic institutions like universities which only focus on teaching cannot teach learners the real essence of the content imparted to them. In point of fact, mere transformation of knowledge is not enough . There is also need for understanding the real sense behind the things the students learn. To change the status quo, nowadays universities have enriched the curricula with a research component in order to help students to discover the values of what they learn in action. As an old adage sates, " Actions speak louder than words."
Teaching and scientific research are integrated in the objectives and results, unless the integration of good links between the objectives of scientific research and society and the rehabilitation of research staff will shrink their role pioneer
I think this is really true .. I followed the colleagues' answers to be sure
Yes, I think so through the overwhelming support of the research aspects
In one way or another, it seems that this trend is being, to a greater extent, ratified by colleagues who have so kindly responded.
However, how difficult is it to achieve an acceptable balance between all substantive processes?
Hi, Reinaldo,
I think that if the students graduate and do not get nice jobs the university will become unknown no matter how much its researchers publish. But in Brazil many stupid people in the government decided and are measuring universities' efficiency by the amount of publication and by the amount of pos-graduated professors the university has.
For me it is clear that one think is teaching and another thing is research. Both are important but should not replace each other.
I agree with Jorge, teaching is important to transfer the knowledge while research is expanding that knowledge.
I do not know the current global tendency, concerning the main question of the thread. As far as I know, the role of research and publication is stronger than that of teaching in my country, Greece.
Regards
Foolish politicians often want to educate young people in the direction they want, for example, to pursue applied research more than basic research. At the university level, moreover, students can learn by themselves. Therefore, the trend of putting more importance on research and publication than education by university teachers against the will of foolish politicians, I think, is a good one.
Reinaldo Requeiro ,
No, I don't think so . But I support@Tatsuo Tabata. sometimes target teaching is asked which can not be carried out by the teachers as like me. Generally , I dont heed this.
In some developing countries, universities spend little funds on research. More is spent on administration and teaching. Unless they win projects from developed world, it is when research is given attention.
Research with publication and teaching students should be done parallel at the universities
And also, they should be taking in considetation in the evaluating process
There seems to be more emphasis on research and development as compared to teaching. In my view, both research and teaching need to be given equal emphasis as well as recognition.
It is easier to assess research contribution than teaching by administrators . Number of publications . Citations , h index are easier to evaluate research than quality of teaching , which can be done only by students .
Research and publication are very different things. Nearly all university teacher teach only the contents of their books after publishing their research or a textbook. So is there no difference between publication and teaching. But the question raises - rather incidentally - a problem that today requires public discussion. Is independent but poorly funded research losing ground in favour of strong economic research that serves the interests of corporations?
With all respect to the ones who think that research is more important than teaching I would like to ask how students will make research in future if they were not educated in the classroom. There'll be no more researchers if no one learns the basics before making research.
For those who already learned research is now more important but could they make research before learning with a teacher in the classroom?
It is very obvious for me that learning is always, in any time, far more important and above all necessary investments in research, unless the country wants to import researchers in future.
Dear Jorge Costa-de-Moura,
Your response is prudent and, honestly, teaching (and learning) should be more important than research and publication at Universities. The reason is simple; The main responsibility of the teaching staff there is teaching.
However, there is the other side of the coin. As I have already posted, ''the role of research and publication is stronger than that of teaching in my country, Greece''. Perhaps the same is true for other countries.
In addition, as dear Prof. Banovac has already posted ''Promotion processes, as well as your own desire to advance your field, usually require that you devote considerable time to research, publication, and presentation.''
Also, let's keep in mind that, in general terms, the promotion of lecturers, assistant professors etc. at Universities require more and more publications at the expense of teaching activities. I think that something should change for the benefit of our children.
Regards
As university teachers, we are equally committed to both teaching and research. The fact that research plays an important role is part of the modern understanding of the university since Wilhelm von Humboldt. If the university only or mainly did "teaching", then it would be a school, and a university of applied sciences is not yet a university either. It is only through the acquisition of academic degrees such as diploma, doctorate or habilitation that the university distinguishes itself from other schools, which impart knowledge and solid professional qualifications to the student. A PhD degree is not acquired through teaching, but through research work that expands the state of scientific knowledge.
Dear Prof. Retter,
I understand your last response. You wrote ''If the university only or mainly did "teaching", then it would be a school...''. I agree with you. Of course universities are not schools and should not be schools.
But, as I have already written ''The main responsibility of the teaching staff there is teaching''. The teaching at Universities should be of high quality and I believe that you realize it. High quality teaching, which requires sufficient time, is a demand of the society which pays for it.
Also you wrote ''As university teachers, we are equally committed to both teaching and research.'' Theoretically yes. But, are we equally committed to both teaching and research? Is this the case at the current university? I am skeptical.
Regards
According to the interventions of my colleagues
I think this is an essential university education, which is being, to some extent and in some cases, somewhat damaged.
There are more and more university professors who prefer to work with students of masters and doctorate and less with the level of degree.
More university teachers who want to investigate and be less committed to pre-grade classrooms.
Where will we go down that road?
In my country, teaching, research and co curricular activities have been given equal weightage in Self Appraisal Score so we are expected to proceed accordingly. It's true that all three together in the allotted time, cannot be given justice!
Dear Mrs. Jaya Vikas
It is very comforting to know that there are very determined attempts, in some countries, to balance all the university processes, so that none goes to the detriment of the other.
That is very valuable and is the true essence of university life.
regards
Reinaldo
Dear Mrs
Hein, as always
How truthfulness abounds in his sincere words, in relation to what a university should be and its differences with a school!
This process of distinctions is complex, it is about finding a balance because, finally, the true university is distinguished by excellence, weighted in the balance and the integration of all its processes.
Investigative and advertising gigantism must begin to be questioned, if it does not return explicit contributions to the formation.
It is time to ask what their true aids are to the noble and integral formation of the new generations.
Is it that we are preparing to build a world of scientists, or should scientists contribute to the balance of the world?
There is a lot of truth in his words.
regards
Reinaldo
It is good when there is a balanced relationship between teaching and research at the universities, because for some areas of teaching it is also possible to award teaching contracts to outsiders, especially if a mass enterprise strongly impairs normal work. Today, however, in addition to teaching and research, university teachers are increasingly faced with administrative tasks that were not as pronounced in the past. If you ask why this is so, you get a contradictory answer, but it is part of our modern life: The more democratic and just a society and its elites want to be at the universities, the more time they have to invest in administrative tasks. We need to hold joint meetings, set up ad hoc committees to solve current problems, write expert reports, discuss teaching and research modules with other groups, provide sufficient time for student counselling, etc. This means that democratisation is associated with an increased additional expenditure of time. The principle of "participation", the participation of as many people as possible in important decisions, costs all participants more strength and time. Nevertheless, this principle is too valuable to be abandoned.
I believe that the sincere and profound evaluations of Dr. Tatsuo Tabata are very timely, at the same time, very brave in this kind of discussions. I think his frankness is literally admirable.
Thanks doctor Tabata
My respects
Dear Pedro
How far goes in our continentIs there a process of victimization for teachers located in teaching?
Do they suffer a kind of invisibility for this cause?
If I put you to teach you can not use time researching.
On top of that the administrative work is very absorptive in terms of time.
Aristidis Matsoukis
Indeed, dear Colleague, you are right with your skeptical attitude. I have seen how at that state university where I taught pedagogy, staff positions were cut by the state, budgets were cut, etc. This had at least two negative effects: Firstly, all forces had to be used in teaching so as not to further worsen the education of students with fewer staff. The second negative was that there were no young people with interest to a university career. An older but retired generation of educationalists were so excellent at demonstrating the discipline of educational science in their research, in their publications, in the number of their doctorates - but now changed the situation quickly so that this discipline, which only very late was given its own chairs and its own research institutions (i.e. experienced recognition as an independent science), was no longer taken seriously at all. What should science burden pedagogues with, that is nonsense - anyone can educate! So much for scepticism, which I also have when I think of the eventful fate of my subject. The efficiency of a university discipine traditionally lies in research. The original idea of the university is: This is a republic of scholars, which researches and teaches in community with students.
The fact that we also have to pay attention to the quality of teaching is certainly an important aspect that has only been taken seriously in the German university landscape in recent decades, for example through evaluation by students. It is important in the same way.
Yes, there is a lot to do - as always.
Tesearch work and teaching are complementary and they should go together. Much attention is normally devoted to the priority of teaching. Tesearch is given a second priority in the educational institutions. To improve the quality of research, much more financial and moral support should be devoted to it.
Yes, that is true. Many universities give higher priority to their research component than the teaching component. In two of the universities I have been associated with let us say out of 100 total undergraduate students about 60 of them are in the first two years (freshmen and sophomore years) meaning that there is a huge drop out during the first two years of undergraduate college education. One reason (though not exclusively the only one) is students' frustration with academic instruction and their difficulty negotiating college life. Part of the reason is that the departments invest more heavily in research and grant money and less on instruction in lower level classes
Academic advancement towards eligibility for tenure is very dependent on successful research and publications. Unfortunately, the attention required to meet the standards to advance as an individual does not always translate to the necessary attention to students. On the other hand, there are professors dedicated to teaching but do not advance in academia because of this priority. So, without a doubt, there is a global tendency to prioritize research over teaching in many, but not all, cases.
The trend in my country is towards an emphasis on research. Our universities have three functions: teaching, research, and extension. However, until these days, their resources were mostly allocated to teaching and very very less is dedicated for other functions. Now, they are trying to put a focus on research. However, it is still very very far from operational. While a focus on increasing the research is a good step to balance with teaching, I believe that extension should also be given equal emphasis. Therefore the three functions will be all balanced.
Until recently the emphasis at my University was more on the research then on teaching. Although without quality pedagogical work you could not be promoted to the highest positons. But the things are changing in the way to give more recognition also to the teaching activities. Just this year University prepared more derailed criteria for evaluation of pedagogical performance which will be considered besides the research performance during the promotion to higher position or re-election on the same. This is showing the trend to make both important pillars more equal.
Dear Reinaldo and colleagues,
welcome
I agree with you that there is tendency in the universities to make the research more stronger such the outcome of the research as papers can be published in highly impacted journals and periodicals such that they get a better rank among the the universities world wide. However without good study program and teaching efforts the level of the undergraduate students can fall. So, one has to consider also the teaching activities to have capable graduates.
Best wishes
Excellent universities have both: high ranking research and excellently teaching staff. I think, we shouldn't play the one off against the other.
Applied research is a very important source of money for universities. We are now even talking about research-based learning to prepare students to be become future researchers. The weakness is that the "problem solving" attitude is slowly replacing the fundamental learning and thinking.
Teaching will produce outstanding graduate whereas publications will increase the university visibility. So both must have equal priority.
The returns that research must make to teaching, that is a very important issue.
Integration of both processes: teaching and research, there should not be a distancing between them. It is not appropriate to investigate to only obtain publicity.
This is not sustainable, scientific practice, as is known, requires resources and its results require economic and social justification. Acting differently would not be sensible.
The modern university aspires more and more to a teaching with a research focus, aspires to a teaching in which the student behaves as an active subject of his own learning, that is, that the student is a growing researcher from the moment he starts His studies.
For a long time I had accompanied those lectures which contained introductory textbook knowledge with routine rather than with personal joy. I also told the students that there are a lot of things that aren't particularly exciting, but that need to be learned because in practice you need them all the time or just in certain situations. I was much more interested in discussing statements from colleagues in textbooks and questioning them together with students. That was the beginning of the students' growing interest in research.
Only later did I discover (because others told me so) that my lectures are not as bad as I usually self-critically judged them to be. I then wrote textbooks for my basic lectures myself and introduced the didactic pattern that distinguishes good textbooks: One presents the state of theory in a descriptive way, documented by detailed quotations from various authors - and at the end follows the section: "Comments and Critique". Here one can critically evaluate those statements, contradict them as often as possible or at least limit their degree of validity. And to emphasize again and again: We expect from every author and his textboot thoroughly tested knowledge.
Our claim as students is higher than the author of the textbook believes. He must put up with the critical question that his knowledge is obviously not sufficient to provide accurate information. But this knowledge can only be obtained through further research, which the author himself did not do.
Conclusion: What I find questionable in some RG-users, that they simply recommend any link on the Internet to the reader to read and believe when they quote an author on the Internet, then that is the unquestionable scientific truth - such nonsense.
I keep my previous comments:
With all respect to the ones who think that research is more important than teaching I would like to ask how students will make research in future if they were not educated in the classroom. There'll be no more researchers if no one learns the basics before making research.
For those who already learned research is now more important but could they make research before learning with a teacher in the classroom?
It is very obvious for me that learning is always, in any time, far more important and above all necessary investments in research, unless the country wants to import researchers in future.
In my opinion the trend is in the unity of all its elements for training with quality teaching from the unity of its academic, labor and research components, where the latter defines visibility as an element of university extension through publications, presentations at events, participation in networks, among others.
The Germans were much successful to erect separated institutions with university level without teaching, only for research. Today their name is "Max Planck-Institutes".
Most universities are working under economical forces. Normally teaching is cheaper as research, for the latter you need much financial input. So it is an economic advantage to strenghen teaching.
High ranked universities, however, get their top ranking by excellent research results.
The ideal of a community of scholars devoted equally to teaching and research is being replaced by a university as a service provider for its clients. With research dominated by the agenda of national and international research organisations and teaching understood as a service necessary to produce graduates - the integrity of the academic is under assault. Increasing specialisation is also a logical outcome of this transition. This has now affected hiring practices, that is to say positions are defined in terms of teaching or research. In addition teaching is being routinised and defined by pedagogues in the same manner as in state supported schools.
Dear Dr. Luccarelli
In this panorama of routines in which teaching is falling and taking into account, as Dr. Retter and other colleagues tell us, universities are better qualified by virtue of their research results.
I would like to ask you and the other colleagues who, with your valuable opinions, attend this forum:
What can we expect from the future of the quality of the graduates?
What repercussions can this have on the labor market?
Will the time come when companies distrust the university?
It is not advisable the existence of separate institutions with a university level without teaching, only for research, as mentioned by Dr. Retter.
I don't want to appear in any form as an opinion maker, I have, like everyone else, only reproduced a personal experience. It will also vary from country to country and culture to culture. We have a relatively strong state monopoly here with regard to universities, which is quite different in the USA. The research institutes, such as the institutes of the Max Planck Society, are not substitute universities, but additional research institutions; they have an elitist claim, but they in no way make the universities' teaching and research tasks unnecessary.
Thank you very much, dear Dr. Retter. I appreciate your clarification that it is not about substitute universities, but about additional research institutions.
regards
Reinaldo
I have to correct the impression that my answer above gave that a strict separation between universities and Max Planck Institutes is correct to the extent that, of course, researchers at important research institutions very often teach at universities, so that their knowledge and new findings also flow into the teaching of the universities. The same applies to "scientific colleges" as meeting places for the cooperation of university teachers, researchers and excellent young scientists, e.g. for the duration of one year together.
Dear Dr. Requeiro
You ask: "What can we expect from the future of the quality of the graduates? What repercussions can this have on the labor market? Will the time come when companies distrust the university?"
It is complicated due to differences between the sciences and the humanities and probably also as a result of different cultural and political expectations of the purpose and structure of higher education in different countries. One measure is the capacity of graduates to apply their training across fields and think creatively and openly in the face of changing conditions. Another is the intensity and rigorousness of the training that graduates have received. I speak here now of the larger body of students, not highly specialised doctoral students. By my estimation the attempt to reform curriculum with these goals in mind collapsed about fifteen years ago and we have been headed downhill since then. I speak only of my own experience and that of colleagues in the humanistic fields.
Both are importanat
In our situation they are focusing only on teaching
The university looks like a school
Dear luccarelli
Your answer is very precise.
I agree with you
I would like to add that the articulation between the results of university research and the improvement of professional training is a matter of institutional survival.
The integrated processes, without a doubt, help to graduate a better professional, this is consubstantial with the good practices that, with all pertinence, have been considered as ideals of excellence.
However, from my point of view, we are witnessing a gigantism of investigation that, not infrequently, is divorced from the quality of professional training.
The adoption of purely quantitative practices, points more to institutional visibility than to the quality of professional training, not always both processes are well integrated.
An exaltation of the number of publications, without this being connected with the improvement of professional training, can create undesirable long-term effects.
It is also true that, by increasing the achievements of research and, consequently, the number of publications that the university professor must present, the dilemma imposed by the competences for the time of dedication between one activity and another appears.
Faced with this dilemma, without a doubt, teaching inevitably becomes defenseless.
I do not know if this last one that I said, coincides with the positioning of Dr. Khaled.
Another of the aritas of this forum is, without a doubt, the connections of university research, not only with teaching, it is also the critical analysis that ensues from the internationalization of its practices.
The authors Nicola Morrison Nikodem Szumilob in his work entitled: Universities ’global research ambitions and their localized effects, proposes the following:
"The world’s top universities compete for the best international students and staff whilst remaining socially, politically and economically intertwined with the cities that they are located in."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.017
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching