The Research-Teaching Nexus and Its Influence on Student Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between teaching and research in universities has been widely studied in the higher education literature, but no clear relationship between the two has been identified. Nevertheless, in recent years, research has been linked to a form of teaching that is more focused on the development of competences and learning capacity through enquiry and the generation of new knowledge. In this context, it is important for teachers and students to work together on the design of shared spaces for research and learning. This work examines the case of the University of Barcelona to analyse whether there is enough connection between research and teaching to allow students to experience this link and to successfully develop research competences. Teaching plans of the academic year 2018-19 were screened to identify research-related competences, the modules they appear in, and the descriptions of the evaluation systems. This information was compared to the students’ perceptions of the actual training they had received on these research competences. Results showed that teaching plans establish numerous competences related to research and generating new knowledge. However, students consider that this knowledge is not developed until the final year project.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".