Perspectives on Research-Rich Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Nine Disciplinary Student-Authored Case Studies.

Author(s):

Ian Kinchin(presenting / submitting)Camille Kandiko Howson

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 10 B, Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

15:30-17:00

Room:

B021 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Monne Wihlborg

Contribution

The idea that undergraduate research may provide the basis for university pedagogy in the twenty-first century is one that has gained ground in recent years (e.g. Dotterer, 2002). This has been accompanied by continuing discussion of research-teaching links and recognition of the value of undergraduate research particularly within US universities, and increasingly within European universities – especially within the sciences (e.g. Hunter, 2007; Tatalovic, 2008; Laursen, et al., 2010). This project puts the student perception at the centre of the discussion.

We report on a project in which student researchers undertook interviews of academic staff members within their own Faculty areas to build a picture of the relationship between teaching and research as perceived by staff and interpreted by students. The project featured students in the role of partners in research, as we were seeking to move beyond the consideration of students as ‘data points’ in the investigation of student voice to move towards the inclusion of students as co-enquirers and co-creators of emerging curriculum models (e.g. Partridge and Sandover, 2010; Bovill et al., 2011; Werder et al., 2012). From their interviews the students started to build a picture of staff perceptions of the links between teaching and research within their own disciplines. The students each wrote a report of their findings in the style of an academic paper, and these were collated into a journal special issue (Kandiko and Kinchin, 2013).

Analysis of the students’ discipline-based reports and the interview quotes given within them reveal a number of interrelated themes that warrant further study. Some academics clearly feel that students need to have acquired knowledge before undertaking research, needing to have already grasped theories in order to test them through research. Others see the purpose of the research to enable students to gain knowledge. These opposing ‘knowledge first’ or ‘enquiry first’ conceptions of undergraduate research may be related to academics’ ability to see ‘research as pedagogy’ as a valuable general principle or as an imposition on their research and teaching context. When academics make comments (reported in the students’ accounts) about “undergraduate teaching being too simple” to support undergraduate research, or that “research has become extremely complicated and it is difficult to find something for students”, it would appear that they are considering research as generating knowledge new to their discipline or society in general rather than knowledge that is new to the student (Willison and O’Regan, 2007; Brew, 2013). They are, therefore, trying to place the undergraduate within their own research agenda, rather than thinking in more general terms about a wider research-rich curriculum. When an academic states that, “teaching does not challenge the mind enough … [as] … it is like spending time with small children”, it re-affirms the separation of teaching and research that has been reported previously and suggests that the conception of the curriculum simply as ‘content to be covered’ is still one that can be found inhabiting the corridors of academia.

Students identified the social nature of teaching as being contrasted with the often more individual role, and rewards, of research. The focus on research as a means for personal professional development led some interviewees to consider research as a selfish activity, whereas the rewards for teaching are not seen to come from personal progression, but from the progression of others. Academics clearly value ownership of their own research, but find the concept of ownership more difficult to apply to the students in their care.

The student reports also suggest that academics’ personal perspectives may be more significant than any widely perceived disciplinary perspective, with individuals from the same department verbalising contrasting views.

Method

Student researchers were recruited within each of the nine academic Faculties within a UK university, covering a breadth of disciplines: Arts and Humanities; Biomedical Sciences; Dentistry; Psychiatry; Law; Medicine; Natural and Mathematical Sciences; Nursing and Midwifery; and Social Sciences. Students were invited to apply for the researcher posts in a process undertaken with the support of colleagues within each Faculty. Successful applicants were paired with an academic mentor from within their own Faculty (who helped to identify and approach suitable candidates to be interviewed) and with a mentor with an education/academic development background, who helped prepare the students for the process of interviewing and with writing up their final reports. The students were given guidance on interview techniques through a series of seminars where the students were involved in discussions to identify key questions and ways to phrase them that would be suitable for their own disciplinary setting. Students then each conducted nine interviews within their own Faculty with a range of academic staff, including Lecturers, Professors, Research Fellows and Postgraduate Teaching Assistants. Discussions with the student researchers considered the variety of staff who may be involved in teaching and/or research and factors such as age, seniority, gender and ethnicity were noted as variables to consider when inviting staff for interview. Whilst an interview sample of nine cannot fully represent of a whole academic school, the students aimed to invite interviewees who were as representative as possible, within the limitations of the project. The students used anonymous quotes from their interviews to illustrate their reports on learning within their discipline and the relationship between learning in a research mode and the taught undergraduate curriculum. This study generated data to describe the voices of 81 staff members across a university whose voices might not otherwise be heard. We do not intend to extrapolate and generalise from the data, but simply represent the voices of those who were interviewed. Some students also drew on wider resources, such as experiences in other institutions and on wider perspectives from other students. Consideration of the perspectives gained here along a continuum between ‘individual’ and ‘collective’ endeavour suggests an emergent pattern in which the relationships between teacher & student, and teaching & research may be usefully presented to initiate further dialogue on the issue of research-rich teaching and undergraduate curriculum development.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of the nine student reports (collated within Kandiko and Kinchin, 2013) reveal a complex picture of perceptions concerning the relationship between research and teaching that can be summarised as a series of dichotomies: • The perception that teaching is a social activity, but (for many) research is seen as more of an individual activity. • Research leads to professional development and recognition among academics, but teaching is more of an altruistic endeavour whose focus is ‘others’. • Whereas academics are keen to claim ownership of their research and to have their name associated with it, teaching is more of a shared responsibility which can easily be ‘passed’ to others. In addition, whilst there are disciplinary differences in the ways in which teaching and research are conceptualised across the disciplines (e.g. Harvey, 2011), it is evident in the students’ reports that personal/individual differences (between academics) are often more powerful than disciplinary differences. The origins of these personal views require further investigation. The power relation between students and academics is difficult to break down in order to foster a genuine atmosphere of co-enquiry. As observed by Curtis et al. (2012), we found the intention to collaborate fully with students to be constrained here by time and the need to develop the research approach and gain ethical approval before the students are involved in the process. The research activity was then squeezed into an academic year, avoiding interference with the students’ examination commitments. Additionally, most of the students were working with us in a social science context for the first time and so there was a need to provide some mentoring for students (e.g. in interview techniques) and this tended to re-enforced their novice status.

References

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A. and Felten, P. (2011) Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2): 133 – 145. Brew, A. (2013) Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: a framework for curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education, 66(5): 603 – 618. Curtis, W., Goodson, A. McDonnell, J. Shields, S. and Wyness, R. (2012) Learning together and expanding horizons: reflections on a student-lecturer collaborative enquiry. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, vol. 4 (3): www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/disciplines/social-sciences/ELiSS0403Practice_paper07.pdf Dotterer, R.L. (2002) Student-Faculty collaborations, undergraduate research, and collaboration as an administrative model. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 90: 81 – 89. Harvey, A. (2011) Disciplines and knowing: exploring the implications of disciplinary context for pedagogic practice. Higher Education Research Network Journal, 3: 29 – 38. Available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/learningteaching/kli/research/hern/hernjvol3.pdf Hunter, P. (2007) Undergraduate research: Winning the battle for students’ hearts and minds. European Molecular Biology Organization, EMBO reports, 8(8): 717 – 719. Kandiko, C.B. and Kinchin, I.M. (Eds.) (2013) Student perspectives on research-rich teaching. Higher Education Research Network Journal, 6 (Special Issue): 1 – 98. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Kinchin2/?ev=hdr_xprf Laursen, S., Hunter, A-B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H. and Melton (2010) Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Partridge, L. and Sandover, S. (2010) Beyond ‘listening’ to the student voice: The undergraduate researcher’s contribution to the enhancement of teaching and learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 7(2): Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp.vol7/iss2/4 Tatalovic, M. (2008) Student science publishing: an exploratory study of undergraduate science research journals and popular science magazines in the US and Europe. Journal of Science Communication, 7(3): 1 – 9. Werder, C., Thibou, S. and Kaufer, B. (2012) Students as co-inquirers: A requisite threshold concept in educational development. Journal of Faculty Development, 26(3): 34 – 38. Willison, J. and O’Regan, K. (2007) Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4): 393 – 409.

Author Information

Ian Kinchin (presenting / submitting)

University of Surrey

Guildford

Camille Kandiko Howson

King's College London

King's Learning Institute

London

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.