Exploring the Teaching-research Nexus in College Based and University Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In traditional university higher education the normal expectation is that academic staff will undertake teaching and research. There is an implicit assumption that active researchers provide a high quality learning experience, with research-informed teaching at its core. The research presented in this thesis explores aspects of the teaching-research nexus in university and college-based higher education. As there is not traditionally a research culture within college-based higher education it may be assumed that the learning experience may be of a lesser quality. This research considered four aspects of provision. It considered institutional and lecturer views on the nexus before examining what students experienced and how engaged they were in their lecturers' research. Comparisons between the types of institution showed an expected cultural pattern between universities and colleges stance on the nexus, where CBHE focused on teaching, post-1992 universities on research-informed teaching, and the pre-1992 universities highlighting their research reputations. The student experience is shown to diverge from this pattern. The CBHE psychology students had a more research-rich experience than those at universities, with varying levels of engagement with lecturers' research. The evidence form this study suggests that research, in its traditional form, may not be necessary to enhance learning. It indicates that there needs to be further exploration about the role of scholarship within higher education to develop a better understanding of the role of CBHE in the higher education sector, and what it may contribute to the teaching-research nexus. This may have implications for the status of CBHE in the higher education landscape, as has been suggested by the first TEF outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".