Download this PDF - GEES Subject Centre Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Issue One January 2001 P L A N E T Teaching and the RAE Response to HEFCE (2000) Review of Research 00/37 Prepared by Mick Healey and endorsed by the Subject Centre’s Director, Manager, Senior Advisors and Steering Group Background 1. In September 2000, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published a consultation report on their fundamental review of research policy and funding. The report, recommendations and consultation questions can be viewed or downloaded from the HEFCE’s web-site at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ Pubs/hefce/2000/00_37.htm Many readers will have been involved in contributing to comments on this report through their own institutions, professional bodies and other interested groups. The National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences felt that several of the recommendations had important implications for the teaching and learning of our subjects. The response reproduced below was submitted on behalf of the Centre, its Steering Group and Senior Advisers, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the three discipline-based communities. It focuses on three main topics: • discipline-based pedagogic research • the relationship between teaching and research • the role of scholarship. Summary 2. Our main concerns are as follows: • The Review of Research treats research as an isolated and separate activity and ignores the beneficial and detrimental effects it has on other activities, in particular teaching and student learning; • The RAE explicitly recognises the ‘end users’ of research, but it is unclear that the interests of teachers and students as users of research are acknowledged; • It is important that synergies between HEFCE’s policies for teaching and research are made explicit to avoid unintended detrimental impacts of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) policy on the standing and status of teaching and the quality of student learning. Discipline-based pedagogic research 3. We welcome the acceptance of pedagogic research in the RAE 2001 as “a valid and valued form of research activity … (that) will be assessed by all subject panels on an equitable basis with other forms of research”. It will be important that the way in which subject panels have interpreted this guidance is reviewed once the outcomes are known. We would welcome confirmation at an early stage that the policy (and practice) of equitable treatment of pedagogic research will continue in any future RAEs so that individuals and departments may plan their contributions sensibly. The policy was announced too late in the cycle to have much impact on what will be submitted to subject panels for RAE2001. 4. Discipline-based pedagogic research is at a very early stage in its development and if it is to be encouraged and nurtured not only should it be valued, but steps also need to be taken, we believe, to raise the capacity of staff in the disciplines to undertake high quality research. This might be achieved by a variety of mechanisms, including opportunities for staff: to obtain pedagogic research training; to work with, and be mentored by, experienced pedagogic researchers; and to gain experience of undertaking small research projects. Pedagogic research projects range over a continuum from evaluations of practices arising from one’s own teaching through more elaborate action research projects to full-scale research projects, such as are funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). RAE outputs are likely to arise primarily from projects located towards the latter end of the continuum. However, to raise the capacity to undertake RAE-type research many discipline-based staff will need first to gain experience of undertaking projects located towards the other end of the continuum. To promote the full range of pedagogic research it is important therefore that policies developed by HEFCE’s Strategic Committee for Research have a synergistic relationship with those designed by the Learning and Teaching Committee. The relationship between teaching and research 5. We are concerned that the report takes an insular attitude to the relationship in that it argues the relationship is not its business. There are two clear examples of this: First, Para 175 states that “it would be wrong to allow teaching issues to influence the allocation of funds for research”. The same logic would suggest that the Teaching and Learning Committee should similarly feel that it would be wrong to allow research issues to influence the allocation of funds for teaching. If that is the case, where do the relationships between teaching and research get discussed and promoted? The research into the relationship between teaching and research clearly shows that if the synergies between the two activities are to be maximised they need to be planned for at the level of the individual, unit/department and institution and not left to chance (Jenkins et al, 1998). Although mentioned in the Sub Group report, ways of progressing this relationship (for example, addressing the issue identified by J M Consulting (2000) that institutional policies to extract synergies are patchy and variable in effectiveness) are ignored in the recommendations of the Review of Research. Second, Para 20 states “We do not believe that the answer to maintaining motivation and reward for other activities is 4
Issue One January 2001 P L A N E T tinkering with the process of research funding or assessment: that would be to act on the wrong instrument. Rather it is necessary to create other and parallel reward systems so that academic staff and their institutions see incentives to put their effort into activities other than research, in which they might have greater strengths or can add more value.” This again raises the question who is responsible for correcting the balance of status and rewards and where will this be addressed? 6. The statement in Para 20 contrasts with Recommendation 22 that suggests that “HEFCE should make it clear that its funds for teaching include an element intended to enable staff to engage in scholarship”. This suggests that this should be achieved with existing funds. If so, how will the balance between rewards for research and teaching be corrected? 7. We are also concerned about the way in which the Report treats the research evidence on the relationship between teaching and research. Para 168 states that “Most academics argue that good research is necessary for good teaching.” However, most academics argue this on the basis of belief and anecdotal evidence, not on the basis of research evidence. The research evidence discussed in the report that HEFCE commissioned from J M Consulting (2000) only gives qualified support to the proposition that “there is a strong relationship between good teaching and good research”. Other evidence indicates that the relationship between teaching and research is a complex one, and where is does exist, it takes place through elements which are common to both processes, such as ‘scholarship’ and the ‘act of learning’ (Elton, in press; Healey, 2000; Jenkins, 2000; Southampton Institute, 2000). 8. A further example of a change in the interpretation of the evidence is given in the way the Review of Research reports on the synergy between teaching and research. J M Consulting (2000) concludes “there is no evidence of a particular synergistic relationship which is present in any general sense across all institutions, disciplines and levels of study.” Yet the Review of Research states in para 168 that “in general, over the sector as a whole, such a synergistic relationship does exist”. 9. In summary, we are concerned that the Review of Research offers no suggestions for developing the synergistic relationship between teaching and research, minimising the detriments of staff research for student learning and maximising the benefits of research for teaching. The role of scholarship 10. The over-simplistic treatment of the research-teaching relationship is also apparent in Recommendation 21 “Scholarship is an activity which is separate from research and should be required of all academics who teach”. Scholarship is defined in the glossary as “being … alert to developments in the subject, including new discoveries, and interpreting and reinterpreting the knowledge base of the subject”. As defined, this is also an activity that underpins research. Hence the promotion and funding of scholarship should not be restricted to the teaching function. Indeed, J M Consulting (2000) clearly state “Scholarship is recognised as an important underpinning for both teaching and research” (para 9). 11. We welcome the distinction that HEFCE are beginning to make between the ‘scholarship for teaching’ - keeping up to date with one’s subject - and the ‘scholarship of teaching’ - researching into teaching (Beckhradnia, 2000; Watt, 2000). However, in the context of the Review of Research we believe that it is helpful to clarify these terms further to avoid unintended outcomes. 12. We have already made a case in para 4 for the difficulty of separating pedagogic research which has an RAE outcome from pedagogic research aimed solely at improving student learning. Hence the RAE is only part of the solution for developing pedagogic research. 13. We believe that keeping up to date with one’s subject is part of the professionalism of being a teacher in higher education and does not require separate funding. However, developing teaching resources, especially electronic ones, and writing textbooks are critical for the quality of student learning and there is evidence that the RAE has diverted the efforts of academics in our subject area away from these activities (e.g. Jenkins, 1995; Healey, 1997). Policies are needed to ensure that the status and rewards for engaging in the development of high quality teaching resources match those for involvement in RAE research. Conclusions 14. Against this background our answers to the relevant questions in Annex M of the Review of Research are as follows: Question 17: Do you agree that RAE panels should be given more freedom to collect evidence specific to their discipline? 15. Yes. Individual disciplines do have distinctive academic traditions and modes of enquiry and it is important that this is recognised in the RAE process. Question 21a: Do you agree that scholarship is an activity that can be distinguished from research? 16. The answer depends on what is meant by ‘scholarship’. If the definition in the report is to be used, the answer is “no”. Research and scholarship are related and overlapping activities, which it makes no sense to distinguish. If a broader definition is to be used, which would be our preference, then funds for scholarship should be found from both the Teaching and Research budgets. Question 21b: Do you agree that scholarship should be required of all academics who teach? 17. Yes, whichever definition is used. The research evidence is clear on the importance of the teacher’s knowledge of their discipline, of their being involved in or aware of current developments in that discipline, and also in the teaching of that discipline, as being central to the quality of student learning . 18. Measures need to be built into the RAE system, or elsewhere, to encourage the production of quality textbooks and electronic teaching resources. Without such measures the RAE will continue to distort the pattern of scholarship across higher education. 5
Page 1 and 2: Issue One January 2001 January 2001
Page 3: Issue One January 2001 P L A N E T
Page 7 and 8: Issue One January 2001 P L A N E T

Download this PDF - GEES Subject Centre Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?