Universities usually put a premium on research outputs[PhD frenzy], but seem to give little emphasis to teachers and teaching.
Students are also the bread and butter of any institution, so this does seem odd.
There should be more standardized courses for the teachers/tutors [ train the trainer courses], more testing and validation of teachers and more incentives for teachers.
How many universities have standardized validation and evaluation of their teachers?
Are we disrespecting our teachers? How do we better value them and retain them?
Dear Fazleh,
This is a million dollar question. It is indeed a disturbingly interesting problem that teachers and universities are facing across the world. Just this morning, a lecturer posed this question when we were having a course in University pedagogy. The problem, however, had started in the US even some decades before1920s when Universities shifted their commitment from centers of advanced learning to research Universities. They did this by turning themselves into “‘corporations of the education industry’ to gather a lion’s share of social resources available to higher education ……and also to focus on educational products for the most important national markets.” What is noteworthy is that across the Atlantic and elsewhere, private financing and philanthropic sources have historically turned the University’s other institutional mandates (advanced learning and teaching) into research focus and issues that mattered to certain policy makers with economic and political clout.
But it seems that at least across the Scandinavia there is a better grasp of the problem; Universities provide courses for lecturers, researchers and PhD students so that they can develop their teaching skills in order to engage students better. Thus, teachers are respected and valued very much in the Nordics.
Elsewhere however, the problem is a little different and precious little is being done to solve it. This is because
1) There are so many adjuncts to do the teaching at a lower cost (most will never get tenure).
2) This also frees the main professors to engage in research and become more popular - this is good for the University’s brand but at the researchers’ cost: limited time, pressure and lessened incentives.
3) Research is also the main criteria for showcasing the intellectual power of universities in their quest to brand themselves. Hence, it remains the priority.
4) Apart from basic research, so many other forms of research have become mostly innovation-focused in collaboration with industry. Once the financial incentive structures are established, the researchers and the Universities see this as a path worth pursuing. Of course, that makes economic sense but at the expense of teaching.
“Why is teaching not valued by Universities?” Clearly, the research-focus has meant that teaching is sometimes undervalued and in some cases teachers are undermined and disrespected. In the short term it would be possible to gloss over such a problem, but the long-term effects can be very detrimental for teaching and learning.
What to do?
-Make teaching as important as research, in such a way that we incentivize both.
-Give more training to teachers/lecturers to develop their skills (as in Finland).
-Make teaching count as much as research during evaluation. Of course, sometimes universities need to adjust both, based on individual aptitude. Some people are more research oriented while others are more teaching oriented. Universities can figure out where and how to allocate who in order to get the optimal results-taking into consideration their areas of strength.
Please see: Roger L Geiger. To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900-1940. Oxford University Press. Acknowledgements to colleagues from my pedagogy course.
Should governments give subsidies for University teaching outputs also?
Dear Fazleh,
This is a million dollar question. It is indeed a disturbingly interesting problem that teachers and universities are facing across the world. Just this morning, a lecturer posed this question when we were having a course in University pedagogy. The problem, however, had started in the US even some decades before1920s when Universities shifted their commitment from centers of advanced learning to research Universities. They did this by turning themselves into “‘corporations of the education industry’ to gather a lion’s share of social resources available to higher education ……and also to focus on educational products for the most important national markets.” What is noteworthy is that across the Atlantic and elsewhere, private financing and philanthropic sources have historically turned the University’s other institutional mandates (advanced learning and teaching) into research focus and issues that mattered to certain policy makers with economic and political clout.
But it seems that at least across the Scandinavia there is a better grasp of the problem; Universities provide courses for lecturers, researchers and PhD students so that they can develop their teaching skills in order to engage students better. Thus, teachers are respected and valued very much in the Nordics.
Elsewhere however, the problem is a little different and precious little is being done to solve it. This is because
1) There are so many adjuncts to do the teaching at a lower cost (most will never get tenure).
2) This also frees the main professors to engage in research and become more popular - this is good for the University’s brand but at the researchers’ cost: limited time, pressure and lessened incentives.
3) Research is also the main criteria for showcasing the intellectual power of universities in their quest to brand themselves. Hence, it remains the priority.
4) Apart from basic research, so many other forms of research have become mostly innovation-focused in collaboration with industry. Once the financial incentive structures are established, the researchers and the Universities see this as a path worth pursuing. Of course, that makes economic sense but at the expense of teaching.
“Why is teaching not valued by Universities?” Clearly, the research-focus has meant that teaching is sometimes undervalued and in some cases teachers are undermined and disrespected. In the short term it would be possible to gloss over such a problem, but the long-term effects can be very detrimental for teaching and learning.
What to do?
-Make teaching as important as research, in such a way that we incentivize both.
-Give more training to teachers/lecturers to develop their skills (as in Finland).
-Make teaching count as much as research during evaluation. Of course, sometimes universities need to adjust both, based on individual aptitude. Some people are more research oriented while others are more teaching oriented. Universities can figure out where and how to allocate who in order to get the optimal results-taking into consideration their areas of strength.
Please see: Roger L Geiger. To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900-1940. Oxford University Press. Acknowledgements to colleagues from my pedagogy course.
I have to agree to Frederick and thank him for his comprehensive response to the question. I think the discipline needs to do its own marketing in highlighting the innovations in teaching and how these can be applicable to raising the profile of educational institutions such as enhanced enrollment. Teachers need to "sell" the profession more so that it can side-by-side with research.
Best,
Debra
Thank you for the insightful comments. Please continue debating the issue
I would not say that universities do not appreciate teaching; rather that working at a university involves teaching and research together with administrative duties naturally. Theoretically this is split in three equal parts, 33% of each. However the professional university ladder requires publishing of research to achieve higher levels.
Possibly teaching and research can be achieved simultaneously by supervising students and publishing such work. This though is more feasible for doctorial and postgrad studies, frequently being made a requirement of such degrees being achieved only through research. this approach makes sense as many a dissertation forming part of other assessment strategies ends up gathering dust on a bookshelf. Which was why I made it a point of self publishing a book based on research with a last section based more on my teaching experience.
For undergraduates it is harder. Usually any dissertation done as part of their studies proves to be very demanding together with other academic assessments, making them reluctant to consider co-publishing with their supervisor.
Nonetheless I do not think that teaching is not appreciated by unis. It just does not make sense since unis are organisations of higher education after all.
Anyone who teaches in a uni can tell you that it is hard work, more so for some faculties and departments though, reflecting their philosophy of what is considered as being the most important, research or teaching. With all its difficultires HE does give you autonomy.
For my opinion I think that one reason is that you don't grow up your knowledge and your skill you still repeating the same thing several years while teaching. Of course doing research make you grow up in sciences community and the university you belong to with. That why combining teaching and research at the same time is not easy at all.
I work with teacher education at university and I believe we do value teaching, we do put a lot of effort and energy into teacher development, but it can only go so far. There are a number of important issues that are not sufficiently covered (or not covered at all) due to lack of time or interest. Also, I believe there is a common sense idea that "anyone can teach", hence, teaching may appear something less technical than it actually is. I have never heard "hum, today I want to work as a doctor, or as a lawyer, or as an architect"... yet, millions of people become “teachers” overnight, especially when out of professional options! If everything else fails, you can always go and teach. This goes against our efforts at university, our commitment to teacher training and the way we value teaching development.
there are main seven reasons...refer to: http://theconversation.com/seven-reasons-people-no-longer-want-to-be-teachers-94580
1. Money. Title VII funding was big before NCLB. Many universities received grants specifically for teachers in high need subject or teaching areas (ESL, math, bilingual education, and science). That money disappeared and testing took over.
2. The majority of teachers are women and unfortunately there are many who feel it is an “easy” job that fits a woman as “nurturer”.
3. Lack of parent support and respect for teachers. We are the bad guys who do not treat their child right. We don't help thrm enough, etc.
4. “We babysit.”
5. “Teachers weren’t smart enough to do anything else.” Yes, some people still believe this.
Hey Fazleh,
This is a really big issue and has been bothering me so much since Istarted my work as a research and teaching faculty in Germany: I have studied and reearched in three different countries by now: in china; USA and Germany. So I am going to share my views from the three countries' perspectives: first of all, it has a lot to do with the university system and its values. In china and the USA, how do college professors teach consists part of their overall evaluation: which means how they teach influence how are they evaluated. That is why they paid great attention to prepare and to ensure the quality of their teaching. In germany, how they teach does not belong to part of the official university evaluation standards, which is why in Germany, most of the quite influential professors do not have to be the best in teaching; secondly, I think regardless of the system and different cultural understandings, there is a predominant trend to evaluate professors and reseaechers based on how much funding, how many research projects, how many publications they have managed, therefore, in order to excel in this trend and time, many of them will have to make the choice betwen research and teaching.
Those are some of my experiences and thoughts, hope it kind of helps...
All in all, I think teaching is always the key in sustainably naturing our university system. it is of great importance and has been way too long neglected.
Consider this recommendation:
allow talented educators to specialize in pedagogy, and pair them with those who prefer to focus on research. Plainly, research is needed to garner corporate funding, but student success rates also share eclat. Compensation could be linked not only to individual performance, but to achievement of the partnership goals, both academic and investigative.
just thinking...
Hello,
Some universities do, but unfortunately by sending questionnaires to the students asking them to evaluate teachers' skill and professional ( sometimes students with low performance may believe that teachers are the reason for their weak performance, and evaluate them negatively). For me as a faculty member I think the outcomes of my teaching will appear through the students' results or scores or by checking my exams' papers by the exam committee, why? because the types and contents of the questions sure reveal everything.
My contribution may seem odd but it really came out through deep digging to find the truth of the matter about how policies are designed for running the high education institutions in many countries because they are bizarre.
In some influential countries, the grey eminence or (éminence grise , in French) has decided to control scholars of universities, everywhere. This can be done easily if the research game is the most important in winning promotions, titles, prizes, travel…and all other benefits. Good honest teaching, which must be the central activity of a university, has become an accessory or an ornament, in reality.
As a cover-up, you will find those who claim & reiterate that teaching cannot be evaluated scientifically in a precise manner. At some universities, "disciplined" teaching for several decades gets a maximum of 5 points for promotion while a single published paper about a research "God knows how it was cooked" gets 10 points for that purpose. This is not only unfair to teaching but it is also a bold insult to this noble mission. But who dares to face the grey eminence and to say that this is an utterly erroneous policy?
I am grateful for God that I am a retired person now (i.e. I do not seek promotions or titles whatsoever. In fact, I never did). Indeed, I was lucky that I did not hold any position during my long teaching career. In other words, I harmed nobody "whether teacher or student".
One reason teaching quality is not valued by universities is that teaching quality makes so little difference in academic outcome. The success of a school is far less dependent on the quality of its teachers than it is on the quality of its students. The range of teacher quality is quite narrow, but the range in the quality of prospective students is vast. Students are not the customers of a school. Students are its raw material. The quality of the work product of even the most skilled artisan is strictly limited by the quality of the raw material that artisan is provided. Schools that are more successful than others are those that enroll students that are of higher quality than others. At Brown University the median first-year ACT score is 33 and the four-year graduation rate of those students is 88 percent. At ‘Minor’ State University, the median first-year ACT score 21 and the four-year graduation rate of those students is 21 percent. Trading only the student bodies between those two schools would quickly result in trading their academic reputations. Trading only their faculties instead would have no meaningful result for either school's academic output.
I think Frederick Ahen above captured the heart of the matter. It is the research dollars and the prestige of verifiable, usable research that schools are concerned with. I agree with the answer that said that those teachers who do not research stagnate and their teaching stagnates. But, teaching is not as glamorous as research. There are papers to grade, lectures, to create. classroom management to be concerned about. Research is critical, no doubt. But the teachers are producing the scholars of the future. I think I would rather teach than do research, but even my family thinks I am an anomaly.
I am new to the academic/teaching field--have been an instructor and director of clinical education almost a year, but have gained some insight into a few dilemmas in the education world. As other colleagues have mentioned, dollars seem to drive many decisions and opinions related to the "value" of an educational experience. However, prestige and accolades of faculty seem to also affect the value a university places on teaching if such accomplishments improve student recruitment and University recognition.
I have continued to practice physical therapy 8-10 hours a week in a local clinic and we are seeking grants for pediatric research. The College has affirmed efforts to advance clinical practice and acquire research grants indicating that this will only improve our teaching depth and contemporary expertise. This may be only an 'indirect' nod to the value of teaching by the College, but my point is that continuing to practice my profession and pursue research reflects a personal commitment to teaching which will hopefully be echoed by other instructors as well as our institution.
Hi all
This is a subjective question and answer at the same time. To value anything is usually an outcome of combination of factors that can be social, economic, or even ideological. Teaching is not an exception. In many education and training providers and in many countries as well, teaching is ranked high only when competences, not just knowledge, such as critical thinking, problem solving, role in context are valued as key for personal and professional development. These competences can only be obtained from high professional teachers
Even though you have capability on teaching, our educational system will push you onto the road of pursuing publication. Teachers in universities who focus on teaching won't get official permission that easy. On the contrast, doing acdemic research is a shortcut as an additional responsibilities if they intended to get a higher rank title.
It is said that teaching is the basic level of teacher's development, and doing research is the professional pursuing. Social capitalism would give a possible reason for teaching isn't valued by university.
I don't know whether it is the same situation happening outside Asian universities, at least it is more like a vanity fair controlled by power in China.
In Malaysia, If you teaching at private higher education - universities/colleges usually academic writing @ producing journal not a priority to the certain institution. You usually given 24 to 28 credit hours a week just to teach (undergraduate level). Plus you have to be involved in marketing too - promoting the private institution program during education fair. That is why Malaysian lecturer especially those have experience with private universities mostly highly regard because their are the most multi-skilled. The lecturer not only in charge the lectures/tutorial, she also responsible to conduct creative teaching such as organize event/seminar/academic farm-trip small/large scale event. You event required to find sponsor for the event your conduct for the undergraduate students. So hectic yet provide genuine experience and certainly exceptional credit to the lecturer academic wise and management experience.
The processes of external evaluation of the universities, give very high scores to the institutional visibility, to the production of knowledge, to the presence of the publications of their professors in high ranking magazines.
Teaching, however, is generally evaluated, with much more discrete score levels. It is a global practice, or at least it is quite widespread.
Not always the processes of professional formation, the exercise of the teaching and the scientific production, are assembled properly.
A good part of the teachers concentrates today on achieving a respectable position on the web, but this is not always accompanied by the exercise of good teaching.
Good researchers could give their students very valuable educational influences.
As the university professors gain experience and international recognition, little by little, they move away from the classroom. It's a trend, although there are exceptions.
It also depends on how a specific university identifies itself, teach, research or both institution. However, recently, the social networking and social service factor has gained impetus and universities which sough "publish or Perish" policy are changing to "Society Beneficial Research". A fact that requires value-added teaching and research based on new methodologies of "Teaching & Learning" in synergy with the aforementioned.
The more we don't give value and respect to teachers, the more we introduce ignorance. We need very high quality lecturers in universities to keep the quality of education. I know many top 1% world ranked universities claim they provide high quality education but that can not be possible, we can't see the research separated from the teaching; they go hand in hand, if one is affected it goes for the other as well.
Good researchers are good teachers. Good researchers ask deep questions that seek good students. However, there are few good students. Why? Commerce.
So, we have pseudo research. The shallow questions are dressed up as industry-leaning. Eventually, humanity will not bear the folly and we will go back to asking deep questions and seek students keen to drive the questions deeper in classrooms, but more so in research labs.
Hello
Happy New Year
Marry X- Mas for our Christian friends around the globe
Concerning teachers training
Some universities delgate teachers to enroll and attend training courses offered by universities" centers and sometimes share in home or abroad conferences for developing and mondernizing teaching skills as a mandotary condition for promotionsal issues.
For me I attended 2 traing courses each lasted for 70 hrs.
..
But still in some countries teacher are mot valued enough in term of salary
In my homeland the university teachers I dont say they got less wages than others , but teachers deserve to have the highest salary of all.
With my wishes,
Faiza
Dear Dr Fred Amonya ...
not at all " Good researchers are good teachers" don't mention it
Best Regards
University offers teaching, research, and community services. Teaching in University is different from teaching in primary and secondary schools. Teaching in university is linked to research, so, good researchers are good teachers.
These are among the attendants of globalization that transformed values from spiritual values into materialistic values that are not based on feelings
I attend many lectures by so called good researchers in the universities. However, this good researcher do nothing but reading their PPT presentation. And the lectures is very boring. Are these good researchers consider good?
Now-a-day it is a must to train Teaching Assistants to teach while pursuing their PhD in order to be ready to teach. Researchers dedicated to research most of the time and not trained on Soft Skills are not good teachers, because they can not pass the intended message, a case mentioned by Jamaliah, however a trained PhD will result in what Mohamed and Elsaid mentioned.
Currently, the University's place in various national and world University rankings is of great importance, scientific activity becomes more important in comparison with educational activities, as it is necessary to increase the competitiveness of the University in the eyes of foreign students
Fazleh Mahomed The direct translation is:
Currently, the university has a great importance in various national and world university rankings, scientific activities are becoming more important than educational activities, since it is necessary to increase the competitiveness of the university in the eyes of foreign students.
In the UK there has been a huge push towards understanding, recognising and valuing the impact of teaching in HE. However, this is (in my opinion long over due). Given the ranking of Universities based on their Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) outcome, there is no doubt that the importance and status of teaching in HE in the UK has risen to the highest level in recent years.
More information on the TEF can be found here:
https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/5ff81204-14f4-4e71-8b48-91f46247c49b/tef_short_guide_2018.pdf
I would also add that a number of years back, UK universities had to start publishing the number of teaching / academic staff that they employ who hold an HE Teaching Qualification rather than their research profile. One measure that is used is Fellowship of Aspire HE (Formerly the Higher Education Academy). More information can be found here:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/individuals/fellowship
So I would say that in a UK context, teaching and learning has never been more important, or as high on an institutions agenda as it is right now.
What is going on at UK universities, now, is a good step in the right direction. A given university usually claims that it carries out 3 activities: teaching, research, and community service. Some may add fostering international educational relationships.
Scientifically speaking, an academic scholar cannot be judged by the number of published research papers only. Many websites, including Research Gate, have revealed many games of deceit in forging research papers & in journals which will publish anything for the sole sake of money buying, afterwards, the so-called " disputed" impact factor.
I have nothing against "honest" research but it is unfair, scientifically, to ignore the quality of teaching in evaluation. It is utter nonsense to give a maximum of 5 points to teaching for decades while giving 10 points to a single published so-called "research paper" when these points are gathered for promotion purposes.
An "honest'" scholar, who is strong in vocabulary, can fake about 10 research papers per year but such scientist will not do that since honesty starts at home & that scholar will not accept living a very big lie.
translation:
Nizar Matar, your point of view is fair and I support her.
Agreed
My University is very attentive to the commitment of the teachers and their training
fundamental for the progress of research and for students
Training and updating of teachers is also essential
This commits the Universities but above all the single Teachers who must always be motivated and able to compete internationally with adequate competence and training.
I agree with the idea of teacher training and updating is very essential, but it will be done in parallel with high research quality
So first priority should be given to research and after methods teaching updating methods
Stop and ponder. Research is pursuit of deep questions. Teaching is dialogue on those questions and the tools used. So, the dichotomy (teaching - research) can be misleading. A good researcher will wander across the platform of questions. Now, what has changed over the past five centuries? How is the platform of questions engaging with the society, the state and market? In the 16th century, the pursuers of deep questions dined with kings and queens. Maybe that’s not as prevalent today, and maybe the change reflects growth in scholarship. Anyway, what is the place of the university in the dynamics of society, the state and market?
Yes, this is currently a significant problem. In this respect, there are large differences between occupational universities and universities. On the other hand, it is not easy to generalize on the dominant formulas of teaching, because there are also significant differences in the range of instruments and didactic forms used between the various fields of study.
Best wishes
If it is true that teaching is not valued by universities, one strong rationale would be that differences in of levels of teaching quality are very small in contrast to differences in levels of student quality. The more academically successful undergraduate programs are those that enroll the highest average quality of students. Students are not the customers of education, they are its raw material. The quality of the raw material always limits the quality of the final product no matter how skilled the artisan. An increase in the quality of students will produce far more academic improvement than a similar increase in the quality of teaching.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education