The teaching-research nexus in the Division of Education,
Arts and Social Sciences
Final report, February 2008
Dr Tom Stehlik
Academic Fellow
Contents
Section
Page
Executive summary
3
1.
Task and terms of reference
8
2.
Background to the TRN and literature review
9
3.
Reviewing course design and assessment in programs
14
4.
Case studies from undergraduate programs
19
5.
Views of divisional staff
25
6.
Research training, higher degrees and sessional staff
34
7.
Divisional committee structure
38
8.
Program approval and review process
39
9.
Conclusion, principles, strategies and recommendations
40
References
47
List of interviewees and contributors
48
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
2
Executive summary
It is apparent that some schools/programs are already well ahead in acknowledging the
teaching-research nexus (TRN) and building it into course design, although
understanding of what the TRN actually means is quite varied. The main findings are
summarised as follows:







Research is context and discipline specific, but the term research is itself
contested and understood in different ways.
Research is introduced in various ways in the schools and undergraduate
programs, either integrated into courses or via dedicated research methods
courses. However, taking a sequenced whole-of-program approach to developing
research skills is preferable.
The undergraduate programs in the division are almost all vocational in nature
and geared towards a professional qualification. Field experience and experiential
learning are central to most programs, with some placements leading directly to
employment. This exemplifies the notion of developing a culture of inquiry not
only for research training and a pathway to higher degrees, but to develop
research values and inquiry methods to take into the profession, the career and the
world of work.
Staff in most of the schools talk about their practice as much as teaching and
research, and that this not only forms their approach to teaching and research but
gives them credibility with students.
Research-informed teaching is important for keeping up-to-date with knowledge
and information in the field, ideally by conducting own research (field
experience) or sharing in research culture at school /faculty level, which informs
course development and teaching.
Modelling an orientation towards inquiry is characteristic of research and can be
translated into a teaching approach or ‘academic attitude’ that models a culture of
inquiry rather than the presentation of facts and solutions.
Research-informed teaching is important for contextualising the field with reference
to current research, and demystifying research and authority by encouraging a
community of scholars where colleagues and students alike are enabled to
contribute to the field through knowledge transfer such as publications.
The project has been important in raising awareness of the TR Nexus and related issues,
and sharing ideas and practice among a wide range of staff within the division. A number
of key principles were established with some incorporating one or more recommendations
which are listed below and discussed in the body of the report, Section 9 in particular.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
3
Key Principles and recommendations
1
Academic development should include opportunities for staff to explore their
own epistemological beliefs and identity as academics in the context of their
particular field and how this is communicated through both their teaching and
their research.
Recommendation 1.1
It is recommended that Heads of Schools devise key opportunities to enable staff to
explore and discuss epistemological beliefs and academic identity, for example by
building this in to school development activities.
Recommendation 1.2
It is recommended that Teaching@UniSA and the core courses in the Graduate
Certificate in University Teaching incorporate this opportunity for all new academic
staff mandated to undertake these programs.
Recommendation 1.3
It is recommended that all sessional staff are encouraged and supported to complete
Teaching @UniSA
Recommendation 1.4
It is recommended that sessional staff are encouraged and supported to make links
between their teaching, research and practice through paid attendance at school
meetings and professional development activities.
2
Recognise and acknowledge the importance of practice as both a basis of staff
expertise and teaching / research interests, and as a foundational aspect of
undergraduate professional programs and the teaching-research nexus.
Recommendation 2.1
It is recommended that academic staff without a practice base in their field undertake
work or field placements as professional development; as students in most
undergraduate programs undertake field placements as a recognized form of
experiential learning
3
Schools and program teams should adopt a whole-of-program approach to
developing a culture of inquiry and a research orientation to the field or
profession, making research skills visible and valid for all students, rather than
relying on research methods courses only.
Recommendation 3.1
It is recommended that annual PER and Program Approval processes for
undergraduate programs incorporate a review of the way in which research training
can be sequenced across the whole of the program.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
4
Recommendation 3.2
It is recommended that the Learning and Teaching Unit develop a list of specific
examples of learning activities designed to enhance the TRN for each Graduate
Quality to assist staff in developing Coursework Program Approvals.
Recommendation 3.3
It is recommended that the Division monitor the outcomes of the Research Skills
Development (RSD) framework trial in the School of COM in SP2 2008, and take up
the offer of workshops and information sessions on the RSD framework by Adelaide
University CLPD, for staff to consider the framework in reviewing research training
in undergraduate programs.
4
Encourage staff to invite contribution to teaching in undergraduate programs
from research active staff across schools, centres and institutes, particularly the
professoriate.
Recommendation 4.1
It is recommended that potential guest lecturers are identified via the directory of
research expertise or by searching the staff directory under ‘teaching interests’.
Recommendation 4.2
It is recommended that all staff - continuing, contract and sessional - regularly update
and maintain their staff home pages including details of teaching interests and
research interests.
Recommendation 4.3
It is recommended that HDR candidates not formally engaged in sessional teaching
are invited to contribute to undergraduate teaching through guest lectures, seminars
and workshops.
5
Develop a process for recognizing and validating research output that is not
currently included in RQF measures and publications data collection yet
contributes directly to undergraduate teaching.
Recommendation 5.1
It is recommended that the Division develop a process for recognizing and validating
research output that is not currently counted under external and internal publications
audits and measures.
Recommendation 5.2
It is recommended that the research activities of sessional staff and their contribution
to teaching and learning are recognized and acknowledged.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
5
6
Reinforcing the recent reviews of honours programs in the division and the
university, develop a more strategic approach to strengthening the links between
undergraduate and post graduate research training.
Recommendation 6.1
It is recommended that the promotion of multiple pathways to research is coordinated
between Research Degrees Coordinators, Honours Coordinators and Research
Portfolio Leaders at school and program levels.
Recommendation 6.2
It is recommended that clearer lines of communication are established between the
various teaching and learning and research committees at school and divisional levels
and all academic staff.
7
Reinforcing the Vice Chancellor’s ‘New Horizons’ discussion paper, recognize
and reward high performance and innovation in achieving the TRN
Recommendation 7.1
It is recommended that a process of evidence-based peer review be investigated for
awarding high achievement and innovation in three areas – teaching, research and
enhancing the teaching-research nexus.
8
Sustain and further develop the process of investigating and enhancing the
teaching-research nexus both within the Division of EAS as well as more widely
across other divisions.
Recommendation 8.1
It is recommended that a project officer position be established to support ongoing
divisional projects and curriculum development initiatives around the teachingresearch nexus.
Recommendation 8.2
It is recommended that the Divisional Deans and the Academic Development Team in
the Learning and Teaching Unit are adequately resourced and supported to sustain the
momentum of the TRN project through the implementation phase of STEP 2010 both
within the division as well as university-wide.
Promulgation of research findings
In addition to presenting this report through the Divisional Deans to Schools, Divisional
Executive and the Teaching and Learning Strategy Group, a presentation of some of the
findings was made to the School of Art Planning Day and Retreat on February 12, 2008.
A number of papers arising from the research will further discuss and analyse the findings
and promulgate the discussion to a wider audience outside the university, through
submissions to international conferences and a special edition of the Journal of Teaching in
Higher Education:
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
6
Stehlik, T. ‘(Re)constructing academic identities through practice’, refereed paper for
'Insightful Encounters - Regional Development and Practice-Based Learning' Conference
on Regional Development and Innovation Processes, March 5th-7th 2008, Porvoo-Borgå,
Finland.
Stehlik, T. ‘Practice makes perfect: Academics talk about the nexus between teaching,
research and their identities as practitioners’, Teaching in Higher Education, Forthcoming,
Special issue on Purposes, knowledge and identities.
Stehlik, T. ‘Entering the academic learning community: How research training is
understood and introduced in undergraduate university programs’, ‘Connecting Faces,
Places and Spaces’, Australian Learning Communities Network (ALCN) National
Conference, October 26th – 28th, Adelaide.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
7
‘Often one falls into a research area and then it is a struggle to find an opportunity to
teach it. Course approval is a long haul and the research may be ephemeral’
1. The task and terms of reference for the project
The Fellowship was established to research, plan and implement processes to embed the
teaching research nexus in EAS undergraduate programs, with the task of mapping current
practice through a combination of questionnaire, interview, focus group and desktop
research. The fellowship commenced on July 30, 2007 with a completion date of January
25, 2008.
Reporting to the Dean: Teaching and Learning, the Dean: Research, the Dean: Research
Degrees and the Divisional FLC Academic Developer, the Academic Fellow was tasked
with:
 Identifying the views of Divisional staff regarding the TRN and what it is
 Reviewing course design and assessment in a minimum of one program in each of
the eight schools
 Identifying the teaching profile in these programs and identifying research active
staff who do or can effectively contribute to teaching in undergraduate programs
 Developing a Divisional database of case studies based on the findings of the
program mapping
 Identifying the effectiveness of the program approval and review templates in terms
of achieving explicit TRN strategies within programs
 Examining the Divisional committee structure in order to identify where such
arrangements enhance development of the TRN, and review award and grant
criteria with a view to rewarding innovation in achieving the TRN
 Identifying how the research capacities and activities of postgraduate students
might be better utilized within undergraduate teaching
 Working with and supporting current TR nexus development projects within the
Division
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
8
2. Background to the TRN and literature review
The revised UniSA Teaching and Learning Framework 2007 was approved by Academic
Board on June 22 as part of the university’s Teaching and Learning Strategy
(http://www.unisa.edu.au/teachinglearning/strategy/default.asp).
The new Framework was designed to ‘…drive a transformation in approaches to teaching
and learning across UniSA. The Framework continues the centrality of Graduate Qualities,
but seeks to improve the quality and quantity of student engagement through three
components of experiential learning –
1. practice-based learning
2. the teaching-research nexus; and
3. service learning’ (Lee, 2007:3)
As one of the three components of the Framework, the teaching-research nexus
(henceforth, TRN) was further described by the Pro Vice Chancellor: Academic in an
internal discussion paper as:
‘The provision of learning experiences that foster connections between learning, teaching
and research and strengthen student development of the qualities of a UniSA Graduate’
(2007: 7)
Therefore, while the term nexus can be defined as a ‘bond, link, connection or means of
communication’ (Dictionary.com), a key aspect of the TRN is that learning is an outcome
of both teaching and research.
Literature
As Lee notes, the current interest in the TRN derives from the work of Ernest Boyer, the
American educator and past president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. Boyer’s attempts to address the traditional divide between teaching and research
in higher education and redefine the nature of academic practice as ‘scholarly work’
incorporated a framework of four kinds of scholarship: discovery, integration, application,
and teaching. However, according to Brew, “a tradition of discussing the scholarship of
teaching has grown up independently of the other three of the Boyer scholarships in spite of
a number of attempts to interrelate different conceptions” (2006:27).
At UniSA the Boyer concept of the Scholarship of Teaching has been around for several
years, with academic staff being encouraged through a range of policies and practices to
focus on their teaching through careful planning, continuous evaluation, encouraging
students to be critical thinkers and active learners, and a recognition that teachers are also
learners. While the Scholarship of Teaching has mainly been interpreted as undertaking
systematic and sustained inquiry into the teaching and learning process through formal and
peer evaluations, funded research projects, professional development activities and even
engagement in formal study such as the Graduate Certificate in Education (University
Teaching), the TRN goes beyond this one aspect of the notion of ‘research on teaching’ or
pedagogic research, to incorporate at least four typologies of teaching-research links:
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
9
Research enhanced teaching can be:




Research-led, ie learning about others’ research – content-based
Research oriented, ie learning to do research – research methods
Research-based, ie learning in research mode – inquiry-based
Research-informed, ie pedagogic research – inquiring and reflecting on learning
(Jenkins and Healey, 2005)
The work by Jenkins and Healey represents part of a large body of literature out of the UK
which seems to have taken the lead in the trend in Europe for progressing the TRN well
beyond the Boyer notion of the Scholarship of Teaching. The Higher Education Academy
in the UK for example has sponsored a number of projects and papers on the TRN, and as
others note, it was a priority area in 2007 with considerable funding given to enhancing the
links between teaching and research in universities (Wareham & Trowler, 2007).
Wareham and Trowler suggest a more refined framework of categories of relationship
between teaching and research as follows:
Dimensions of the teaching-research nexus
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Learners do research
Teachers do research
Teachers and learners research together
research embedded in the curriculum (influences the what and the how)
Research culture influences teaching and learning
The nexus, the university and its environment
Teaching and learning influences research
Oxford Brookes University has also taken the lead on the TRN in the UK and from its
website, the following provides a more detailed discussion and broader explanation of why
the issue is important:
Working Concepts
1. Concurring with other research, we conclude that learning provides the conceptual
link between teaching and research: research is the process of learning for
academics - teaching is the promotion of learning for students
2. In a knowledge-based society, research and consultancy skills are key attributes in
vocational and professional fields. Graduate professionals increasingly need core
skills in managing, synthesising and deploying subject-based knowledge to derive
solutions to real-world problems; integrating teaching with research helps to embed
these core skills
3. Graduates with the skills and ability to conduct research in operational settings are
more likely to have the capacity to formulate problem-solving solutions based on an
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
10
awareness of where to find or collect evidence, how to critically test the reliability
of that evidence and how to present the conclusions and findings
4. Acquiring research and consultancy skills enhances graduate employability and
provides graduates with the resources and confidence to understand and adapt to a
society whose knowledge-base is fast changing
Oxford Brookes further provides some very useful observations on developing the TRN in
higher education institutions at different organisational levels:
Strategic Issues in Integrating Research, Teaching and Learning
Integrating teaching and research does not usually happen automatically; it needs
systematic action through change strategies at three levels:
 institutional level policies and strategies for teaching, research, staffing and
program development / evaluation
 faculty/departmental level policies for staffing, workload planning, and
managing teaching and research
 curriculum level - design, delivery and assessment and program monitoring
The academic department is perhaps the key level for focussed attention to
developing and supporting the link. Here is where staff roles are most clearly defined
and where teaching and research are most directly organised and potentially where
they can most effectively be linked or remain in separate and even hostile worlds
(http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/LTRC/fifteen-points.htm!)
The TRN is also in the foreground of the higher education landscape in Australia and
New Zealand, with the Carrick Institute holding a two-day forum on the TRN in Adelaide
during August 2007. The forum highlighted the differences between the various
disciplines in relation to research funding and research focus; the gap between policy and
practice in research funding and teaching; and again reinforced critical inquiry as a key
process in both teaching and research activity. In comparison with other Higher
Education Providers it is apparent that UniSA is at least keeping up with the field if not
slightly ahead in some ways, eg embedding the TR Nexus in the T & L framework. Two
of the keynote speakers at the forum have published extensively on the topic – Angela
Brew from Sydney University and Kerri-Lee Krause from Griffith University. Krause’s
work also reinforces the discipline-specific nature of the TRN, and her research with
academics in Australian universities established that ‘though there is a conception of the
TRN that permeates teaching and learning across higher education…the precise nature of
the connection is often implicit, intangible and vaguely formulated’ (Krause, Arkoudis
and Green, 2007: 3). This notion became a central question in the fellowship research
methodology which sought the opinions of Divisional staff on the ‘precise nature’ of the
connection.
Other Australian universities which have undertaken funded projects into the TRN and
produced reports, position papers, analyses and guiding principles for staff include
Swinburne and Curtin Universities of Technology, Monash, Queensland and Melbourne
Universities.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
11
In New Zealand it has also been noted that the voices of academic staff reveal multiple
discourses on a range of beliefs and practices rather than a unified perspective, and that
understandings of ‘knowledge’ are increasingly contested (Robertson, 2007: 542).
Resonating with a number of qualitative interview studies, Robertson also notes that while
academic staff ‘indicate a strong belief in a symbiotic relationship between research and
teaching’, their experience of this relationship varies according to a number of variables,
including academic status, level of teaching, discipline, and the meanings attached to the
activities of research and teaching (2007: 543).
Meanings
The meanings of the terms research and teaching are actually critical to a study of the
TRN, particularly the former. The dictionary definition of research is quite broad:
Diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or
revise facts, theories, applications, etc (Dictionary.com)
However, while many academic staff may use the term research and inquiry almost
interchangeably (Brew, 2006:47), it is increasingly apparent that in academic circles
research is defined solely as that which is measurable, publishable, of high impact and
status, and based on evidence; to be distinguished from consultancy, practice, creative
output or even course development. This has become the dominant paradigm largely due to
the overwhelming influence of national policies on research performance - in the UK the
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), in New Zealand the Performance-Based Research
Fund (PBRF) and in Australian the Research Quality Framework (RQF), which have been
variously described as ‘emphasising research as a form of revenue generation’ (Robertson
2007: 544) and contributing to ‘staff poaching’ and ‘buying in David Beckhams’(DEST,
2005).
Academic staff could be excused for being confused about the meaning of ‘research’, with
the following definitions from the NHMRC and DEST:
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
The meaning of ‘research’, as used in this Code, is original investigation undertaken to
gain knowledge, understanding and insight. It is a broad concept and there is no simple,
single way to define research for all disciplines (NHMRC, 2007:1)
DEST Higher Ed Research Data Collection, 2008
Research: Creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock
of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this
stock of knowledge to devise new applications
Any activity classified as research which is characterised by originality; it should have
investigation as a primary objective and should have the potential to produce results
that are sufficiently general for humanity's stock of knowledge (theoretical and/or
practical) to be recognisably increased
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
12
Most higher education research work would qualify as research (DEEWR, 2008:7)
Yet as documented in this report, research work in the creative arts in higher education for
example has struggled to qualify as research according to RQF guidelines and internal
publications audits. The UK RAE goes even further to define what research is not:
•
It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original
research.
There is furthermore a clear delineation in the RAE between research that supports
teaching – ie ‘scholarship’, as opposed to research to develop teaching materials:
•
Here the term ‘scholarship’ has the particular meaning:
‘... the creation, development and maintenance of the intellectual infrastructure of
subjects and disciplines, in forms such as dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues
and contributions to major research databases’ (RAE, 2001:8)
Such definitions – which the NHMRC still refer to - clearly contribute to maintaining the
separation between teaching and research and add to the barriers or inhibiting factors
affecting the development and integration of the TRN. Other inhibiting factors include the
way in which research is perceived in the culture of the institution. As academic developers
at Swinburne University found, pejorative language such as ‘teaching loads’ compared
with ‘research opportunities’ and divisive institutional policies and practices such as
classifying workloads as either teaching or research send negative messages to staff (Flood
et al, 2007). Furthermore, it is not only academic staff in higher education institutions who
may have differing ideas and attitudes towards research - ‘studies conducted in the UK,
Australia and Finland [found] that students have very hazy ideas of what research is’
(Brew, 2006:46).
Finally, the meaning of teaching can not be taken for granted either. A very basic
distinction is the understanding of teaching as information transfer or knowledge
transmission with the focus on the teacher and syllabus, compared with a knowledge
generation model which emphasises the student and their understanding of phenomena as
the central focus. The former has often been associated with superficial learning and the
latter with deep learning, but as Brew points out, knowledge generation can also be seen as
the purpose and outcome of research and therefore ‘different approaches to teaching have
different consequences for how teaching and research can be brought together’ (2006:19).
It is a notable finding from this research project that some staff in the Division of EAS
definitely have different conceptions of what constitutes teaching – for example the view
that standing in front of a group of students and delivering a lecture is ‘teaching’, whereas
working one-to-one with a student in the role of supervisor for example is not seen as
teaching, it is regarded as something other, eg a ‘learning process’.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
13
3. Reviewing course design and assessment in one program from each school
A large undergraduate program from each of the eight schools in the Division of EAS was
identified for this review, in order to compare and contrast specific discipline based
research processes and understandings, research courses, types of assessment and teaching
profiles. In addition to analysis of program documentation and schedules, interviews with
Program Directors were undertaken and in some cases other academic staff members were
interviewed for further information or at the suggestion of the Program Director – eg
coordinators of Honours or research methods courses. Attendance at program team
meetings also took place for some of the awards as well as attendance at School TALC or
academic committee meetings. The following table shows the relevant awards, Program
Directors and staff interviewed:
Case study programs Div EAS
School
COM
EDS
ACI
ARC
PSY
SWP
ART
Program
MBMA
Bachelor of Media Arts
MBED
Bachelor of Education
(Junior Primary and
Primary)
MBIL
Bachelor of Arts
(International Studies)*
DBAE
Bachelor of Architectural
Studies
MBPU
Bachelor of Psychological
Science*
Program Director
Denise Wood
Barbara Spears
Katharine Vadura
Jonathan Crichton
(Course coordinator)
Stephen Ward
Christine Garnaut
(Research fellow)
Lyn Leaney
Rob Ranzijn (Research methods
course coordinator)
MBSS
Bachelor of Social Science Harry Savelsberg
(Human Services)*
DBVS
Bachelor of Visual Arts
(Specialisation)
DUCIER DBAS Bachelor of Arts
(Aboriginal Studies)*/
DBAU Bachelor of Arts
(Australian Studies)*
Other staff
Vicki Crowley
(Research Portfolio Leader)
Sharron Russo
(Research methods course
coordinator)
Di Barrett
Peter Gale
Janet Bryan
(Honours coordinator)
Sue King
(Research Portfolio Leader)
Sarah Wendt (Research
methods course coordinator)
Andrew Hill
(Portfolio Leader Teaching &
Learning)
Mary Knights
(Director SASA Gallery)
Tangi Steen
(Research methods course
coordinator)
Note: * These programs also have double degree configurations
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
14
A recurring theme across all programs was the view of undergraduate students towards
research. Staff reported that many students do not see the relevance of understanding
research processes or undertaking research projects to their studies or to their future
vocation / profession. This resonates with studies in Finland and the US which found that
about half of the students learning research skills did not consider that they would need
them in their working lives, a finding that was cited as a ‘cause for concern in the context
of a knowledge society’ (Murtonen 2005 cited in Brew 2006: 58). However as reported in
Case Study 5 (see section 4), this attitude can often be reversed through a positive
experience of participating in practitioner research during undergraduate studies.
All programs in the above table incorporate research training in a number of ways, as the
following questions addressed:
Are there courses/course components which develop students’ understanding of the
role and value of research in the development, currency and relevance of their
respective disciplines?
Are there courses/course components which mirror or simulate the research processes
in the subject area?
The broad question of whether each undergraduate program introduces students to a
particular orientation and understanding of research in their discipline is difficult to
determine from program documentation, but was put to program directors and other staff
and raised in a number of forums such as program team meetings and School TALCs, and
in staff interviews, with varying responses.
Education: Members of the MBED program team observed that education is not a
discipline per se but an amalgam of psychology, sociology, philosophy etc, is not
associated with a single research methodology, and suggested that as a group they would
not necessarily even agree on what ‘research’ is. In fact students should be exposed to a
variety of views of research (and teaching) approaches and not just a single one. However
the expectation is that students graduate as ‘inquiring researchers’ able to problem solve in
the particular context of primary / junior primary education as well as becoming prepared
educational practitioners.
The MBED program attempts to do this by a sequenced approach to becoming members of
the teaching profession over four years, with an emphasis on practice, and beginning in
first year with a focus on induction into the university environment and the world of
academe – eg reading, writing, researching etc. In third year a research methods course has
recently been introduced as part of the process of joining the profession to emphasise the
importance of becoming a reflective practitioner as well as being able to ‘read the language
of research’. While the practicum is a major part of the program, one of its functions is to
test out educational theories that are integrated in all courses across the program.
Australian and Aboriginal studies: Research in the Unaipon School also takes a multidisciplinary focus and draws from Sociology, Politics, History and Cultural Studies, but
with a broader view that includes indigenous literature, critical racism and post-colonial
studies. The two related BA awards focus on Aboriginal Studies and Australian Studies
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
15
with a number of common courses, including one first year, one second year and two third
year courses that incorporate research methods and project based assessment requirements.
In addition a number of individual courses in each strand have a research focus, eg research
on policy and political discourse in relation to Indigenous issues, media analysis, data
collection and analysis, writing research proposals, using databases and report writing.
Communication: A key concept in the MBMA program that students are introduced to is
the industry standard, or the level of knowledge, expertise and skill expected in the media
arts field that graduates will be working in. In this regard the award has been recently
developed and introduced with a clear focus on employment in the media arts industries,
from a view that the predecessor BA with multiple strands was not ‘employable’. The
MBMA offers majors in distinct areas of the media arts industry, eg animation, film, TV,
web development etc, with a professional focus on ‘the scholarship of engagement’. The
industry has clearly indicated that the demand is for graduates who are more than just
competent technicians – they need to be problem solvers, leaders, creators and decisionmakers.
To orient students towards this industry standard, from first year on there are four core
multi-media courses which have been designed to integrate research processes and skills in
the assessment tasks. For example students undertake ethnographic research with cameras
or using a range of other media, have to make real-life quality decisions, then report their
work via peer-reviewed papers posted online. This mirrors the journal review process and
introduces students to the idea of academic criticism and contribution to the field.
Therefore even the applied courses include a research basis and are ‘not just teaching pure
practice’, but offering a balance of theory and practice that one lecturer associated with left
and right brain activity and summarized as ‘being in the zone’ (see Case Study 1). There is
no dedicated ‘research methods’ course until the Honours year.
Architecture: The industry standard is an important concept in architecture as well, but
even more foundational to the programs in the school and the profession is the
understanding that design is a mode of inquiry. The design process underpins both the
theoretical and practical aspects of the program, and students experience this in an
integrated way through a number of design studios, often based on ‘real’ design briefs or
competitions, with a strong practice base, in every year level of the program. While the
design process underpins both teaching and research in the field of architecture, the DBAE
program director believes that ‘students are more interested in staff practice activities and
their outcomes rather than research’. Practice outcomes such as built work and design work
are easily communicated to students but also demonstrate the research and practice
interests of staff as well as the opportunity for students to collaborate on projects, and
experience self-directed research integrated with experiential learning (see Case Study 6).
Research components in core courses in DBAE other than the design studio courses are
more obvious in higher level courses, and in some streams (eg History and Theory)
compared with others (eg Communications). There is no dedicated ‘research methods’
course until the Honours year.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
16
Art: Students in the Bachelor of Visual Arts also have the opportunity to experience a
number of separate studio areas from first year, which again provide an integrated approach
to theory and practice and an environment for experiential learning. There are strong
similarities with Architecture in the way in which staff see both their teaching and their
research as based in their own studio practice, and research processes and outcomes are
also communicated to students through practice outcomes.
By the middle of their second year students choose a studio area from those they have so
far experienced (eg glass, painting, photography, printmaking, sculpture etc) and enter into
a more in-depth specialised study in this area. In this regard their choice of studio
specialisation is based on an experiential process of determining practice. From then on the
teaching is project-based, and given exemplars, students develop their own projects around
broad concepts, and by third year they are required to develop proposals according to what
again might be termed the ‘industry standard’ or more appropriately ‘state of the art’.
Core foundational and theory courses also include a research component, and for example
assessment requirements in the very first core course in first year – Foundation Studies –
include a self-directed project and a studio diary documenting weekly research into artists.
There is no dedicated ‘research methods’ course until the Honours year.
Social science: Social Enquiry Methods is a core course in second year which introduces
students in the Bachelors of Social Science and Social Work to both qualitative and
quantitative research design methods. It is seen as an ‘introduction to academe’ for students
and is intended to increase their confidence and critical understanding of reading and
writing research based on rigour. There is a high qualitative basis for research in the field
which students align with, but understanding statistical analysis would be more useful to
government agencies where many graduates are finding employment.
Students also struggle with the relevance of understanding research to their practice in
social work and social policy, fields that are strongly practitioner-based. The full-time 15
week placement reinforces this, but there is a possibility to undertake a research-based
placement. Only a very small number of students continue to honours because of this, and
also because of the availability of work in the field and the high rate of employment of
graduates.
International studies: There are two distinct discipline areas in the School of International
Studies: international studies which are more associated with the tradition of sociology, and
applied linguistics and culture studies (see Case Study 2). Both traditions see their degree
programs as a total experience building towards graduating students with the capacity for
critical inquiry, rather than focusing on individual research-methods courses.
In MBIL there is a research methods elective course in third year, which is not mandatory
except for Honours preparation. There are however eight core courses across the three
years in which assessment requires issues-based and case study research to introduce key
concepts in the field. Like most of the undergraduate programs in the division, practical
experience in the field is a major focus, with international exchange programs and
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
17
internships providing experiential learning and reinforcing the expectations of employers
for graduates in achieving an ‘industry standard’ level of knowledge and skill, for example
in international relations.
Psychology: Within the Division, the discipline of Psychology is seen as representing the
most quantitative end of the research spectrum, although some staff consider this
contributes to a rather narrow and reductionist view of psychological research when it
could be more contextual and dynamic.
As an established discipline with strong traditions in research and teaching, there are also
specific expectations from the profession. For example, according to the Australian
Psychology Accreditation Council, the name ‘Psychology’ is only permissible in a fouryear program, so since 2007 the three year undergraduate program has become the
Bachelor of Psychological Science. The pathway to full accreditation as a Psychologist is
available to students through an Honours year (plus a two-year Masters).
However by the end of first year students in MBPU are already familiar with the highly
quantitative research environment in the field through introduction to journal articles,
literature reviews and databases in Psychology 1A and 1B. Research Methods 1 in second
year increases the focus on research design and statistical applications and includes
practical classes where students spend time in computer pools manipulating data in
programs like SPSS. Research Methods 2 continues this in third year but is offered as an
elective and mandatory only for those going on to Honours. These courses are assessed
with exams. Other courses and electives expose students to policy research in
developmental or forensic psychology with requirements to write research proposals and
reports.
Appendix 1 provides a matrix of these eight undergraduate programs by research training
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
18
4. Case studies from undergraduate programs in EAS
Case study 1 – Media Arts
School of Communication
The Media Arts courses in the School of Communication present a good example of the
nexus between teaching and research in two distinct ways:
1. Orientation and induction to the academic discipline
2. Orientation to and experience of the broadcast media industry
Orientation and induction to the academic discipline
The newly accredited program Bachelor of Media Arts (MBMA) has introduced a ‘new
headset’ in delivery and assessment which introduces students up-front to an inquiry-based
approach to teaching and learning, in recognition of the industry’s requirement for
graduates who are not only technically competent but able to be creative problem solvers,
leaders and decision makers.
The program incorporates core courses in digital media and interactive media techniques
which require a range of research-based assessment processes. For example students are
required to post actual research findings on to the web which are geared to a specific
audience, in this case their peers in the course. By Week 5, students are required to post a
journal paper and seek peer review from the lecturer and one student. Based on review
comments the paper is then amended if necessary and re-submitted for assessment before
being posted online. Students are encouraged to use a range of media for their research in
developing the paper but need to show evidence of quality decision-making and critical
analysis.
This process introduces students to the concept of academic criticism and mirrors the
journal review process that is a key aspect of academic discourse, and reinforces the
graduate attribute of being prepared for lifelong learning.
Orientation to and experience of the broadcast media industry
The Media Arts teaching team in the School of Communication was recently awarded a
UniSA citation for outstanding contributions to student learning on the basis of a studentfocused team-teaching approach to delivery of courses related to the broadcast media
industry, utilising what they refer to as ‘real world initiatives’. These include:
‘ …modeling a professional approach to managing projects, creating industry standard
learning tools, inviting industry professionals to teach, creating awards and screening
ceremonies, and creating and producing television programming to air student content.’
The key concept here is teaching to the industry standard, in which it is recognized that the
standard of accepted practice in the broadcast media industry not only sets the benchmark
for assessment but reinforces the strong practice base of the Media Arts courses. For the
teaching team this includes staying relevant and up-to-date with a dynamic industry by not
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
19
only continuing their own practice but sharing this with students, who have commented
that this is ‘…informative, honest, generous and at times, entertaining’.
Many staff from the Division of EAS have commented on the integration of their practice
with their teaching and research, and this case study demonstrates that modeling industry
practice in both content and process develops a strong inquiry-based and team-based
approach to tackling new projects, and encourages a deeper understanding of the industry
environment that graduates are likely to be working in.
http://www.unisa.edu.au/com/
Case study 2 – Language and culture in professional life (LANG 2021)
School of International Studies
This second year course has been introduced recently by the course coordinator who
believes that he can get students to understand the connections between teaching, research
and learning by modeling his own research in his teaching – ‘I have learnt about the
discipline this way so they can too’.
To introduce research as a resource in learning that can be transferrable across disciplines,
the assessment in the course requires students to ‘deal with live data rather than fabricated
data’ using an experiential approach. Although the focus of the course is applied
linguistics, students are able to relate to their own lived experience from a linguistic
perspective through their own personal or professional identity, and come to realize that the
course is about discourse analysis not by being told at the start, but by applying a problem
solving approach to a real life question and owning and addressing the problem.
Examples of contexts in which this occurs have been as diverse as nursing, gaming, retail,
telecommunications and autism.
Given the ethics requirements of collecting ‘live data’, the course coordinator has
established an overarching ethics parameter at course level so that students do not need to
wait for individual ethics applications to be processed.
For the final assessment, the students are required to submit a paper that would qualify for
submission to a refereed journal.
The course coordinator believes that experiencing the conventions of academic research
and publishing adds value to students’ lives and shows they have the skills and resources to
contribute to knowledge in the field; and also provides the opportunity for them to
appreciate that academics are also ‘assessed’ by their peers when submitting written work
to journals. This notion of induction to the world of academic research and writing is
reinforced in other case studies, but in this case the course coordinator believes that the
whole undergraduate degree process can be seen as a research project, in which students
progressively reflect on and ‘make sense of’ the three years as a total experience in which
the links between the literature and their own experience can connect them to broader
issues.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/courses/course.asp?Course=lang+2021
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
20
Case study 3 – Social Research Methods (HUMS 2006) and Project Management in
the Social Sciences (HUMS 3042)
Unaipon School
These two courses from the BA (Australian Studies) and BA (Aboriginal Studies)
contribute to developing and monitoring the sequence and progress of research and project
management skills through both programs, which have a high success rate of employment
opportunities for graduates. Consequently, there is a push for vocational outcomes over
research processes, as found in other schools in the division where staff report that students
often do not consider research to be relevant to their careers as practitioners. However, it is
considered that the foundation courses in the Unaipon programs contribute to ‘visible
skills’ in the workplace, such as information management and workforce planning.
The second year course Social Research Methods is all online and requires a full
experiential research process including literature review, research proposal and research
report. Data collection is based on desk research around a topical subject eg internet crime,
and students are asked to contribute cases to a database managed by the course coordinator.
All students than have access to the database as a resource and an example of collective
contribution to research, which provides a real life set of data to practice data analysis such
as determining variables and categories.
In third year, the course Project Management in the Social Sciences requires students to
undertake management of a project in teams of 2 or 3, for example plan a social science
conference including all workload, meetings, activities and resources. Proposals are again
submitted to a database, and students are required to become skilled in the use of project
management software to manage all aspects of their proposal. To encourage independent
learning they are also required to research event management including talking to event
managers about their work.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/courses/course.asp?Course=hums+2006
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/courses/course.asp?Course=hums+3042
Case study 4 – SA School of Art Gallery
‘The South Australian School of Art (SASA) Gallery is being developed as a centre for
high-quality research and is an active site of teaching and learning. The aims of the SASA
Gallery include:
• showcase South Australian artists, designers, writers and curators associated with the
School of Art in a national and international context;
• support a program of researched exhibitions with a strong curatorial premise or rationale
which focus on experimental, innovative and excellent contemporary art;
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
21
• engage in dialogue and extend critical debate about contemporary visual art, design and
culture.’
This quote from the homepage of the gallery’s director Mary Knights summarises the
unique role that the gallery plays in linking teaching and research in the School of Art.
The key to this is the fact that the gallery is recognized and accredited to the same industry
standard as any other commercial or public gallery which exhibits curated and selected
works by emerging as well as established artists. In this case, the artists are often also
academic staff members of SASA who maintain their practice as an artist and are able to
claim research output through exhibiting in a ‘researched exhibition with a strong curatorial
premise’. Other value added benefits of staff exhibiting include modeling art practice to
students, who are also encouraged to consider themselves as practicing artists able to
demonstrate engagement with ideas.
The gallery also provides a teaching focus within the school with artists in residence who
have collaborated with students in designing and building installations as well as
conducting artists’ talks, workshops and providing mentoring opportunities for students.
The gallery director also teaches a second year course in Contemporary Curatorial Practice
which includes a work experience placement with the SASA Gallery to provide students
with hands–on experience in exhibition installation and management.
http://www.unisa.edu.au/art/sasagallery/default.asp
Case Study 5 – Research with Young Children – EDUC 1012
and Early Childhood Practitioner Research – EDUC 1039
School of Education
In the Bachelor of Early Childhood Education undergraduate program (MBCE), these two
courses occur in the third and fourth years respectively. Research with Young Children
introduces students to the basics of research methods and requires them to understand how
and why to undertake a literature review, construct research questions and develop
appropriate methods according to what the course coordinator describes as ‘classical
research design’. In Early Childhood Education this does not include statistical data
analysis but emphasises more qualitative approaches.
A successful result in this course is a pre-requisite for admission to the With Honours
fourth year program, but is also a pre-requisite for undertaking Early Childhood
Practitioner Research – a course that is required by all students not undertaking honours.
The course builds on the pre-requisite but is based in a practicum or classroom setting
where students are given a suggested list of research topics that require an action research
approach over a specified 22 days involvement in the school or setting, which could be a
kindergarten or child care setting.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
22
This is clearly presented as different to the normal practicum experience required in
undergraduate teaching programs, which is characterized by observation and ‘prac
teaching’. Being research based this course is seen as having value added benefits for
schools and settings, for example undertaking a survey on healthy foods or the types of
books children are reading. Although there is an ethics parameter at the course level
(compare with Case Study for ACI), students must still seek approval from the school
principal or centre director and also parents of children involved, which requires them to
‘sell’ their project and their own competency in carrying it out.
Despite the overall ethics parameter at course level, the first assignment requires students
to complete an online ethics application in order to fully understand the process and the
issues involved in undertaking real research with children and working with ‘live data’.
This data is then presented in the form of a journal article of a standard sufficient to be
published in a journal for Early Childhood Education practitioners. A final reflective paper
on the overall experience is also required.
Of real interest is the course coordinator’s observation that, like most education students,
those enrolled in the MBCE program initially display a strong dislike for research and
believe they have enrolled to learn to become practitioners, not researchers. Yet a change in
attitude is observable between first and fourth year, especially after undertaking the
Practitioner Research course. Students are seen as more confident and competent, and this
transition is attributed to the experience of co-teaching, taking responsibility, understanding
the link between research and curriculum development, and being involved in other higher
level activities in fourth year such as debating. It is clear that the students themselves are
making the connections between teaching, research, learning, curriculum development and
professional practice.
In this sense there is a clear transition to the profession that occurs for students during the
latter half of the program. As a result, anecdotal evidence is showing that the schools have
been impressed with some students and have asked when they will be graduating so that
they can be offered positions.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/programs/program.asp?Program=MBCE
Case Study 6 – Architecture Design Studio
Louis Laybourne-Smith School of Architecture and Design
The Bachelor of Architectural Studies program is based on a design studio approach. The
design process underpins both the theoretical and practical aspects of the program, and
students experience this in an integrated way through a number of design studios, often
based on ‘real’ design briefs or competitions, with a strong practice base. Practice
outcomes such as built work and design work are easily communicated to students but also
demonstrate the research and practice interests of staff as well as the opportunity for
students to collaborate on projects, and experience self-directed research integrated with
experiential learning.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
23
This is exemplified by the Architecture design studio courses that are core courses in the
award, but in particular the series of elective courses in design and construction which are
based on the design, detailing, fabrication and construction on site of actual buildings
commissioned through public tender processes. The most recently completed project that
saw a large group of students involved on site was the construction of the visitor’s shelter
on Mt Franklin in the Namadgi National Park in the ACT. Previous projects include the
Patjarr community arts and visitor centre in the Gibson Desert. In participating in the
hands-on construction of these structures in remote locations, students experience at first
hand the design-construction process, the issues involved and the solutions required to deal
with the practical requirements of building to required standards, budgets and timelines.
Case Study 7 – Visual communication, Graphic Design Studio 3 GRAP 2008
School of Art
In the undergraduate Bachelor of Visual Communication, the design process is also used as
a way to introduce and explain research. Students see it as ‘information gathering’, but the
information must then be applied in design projects through a process of reflection and
critical analysis which is seen as a ‘constellation’ of discovery, trial and error that
juxtaposes theory, practice and observation rather than a simple linear process. One lecturer
uses the term ‘resonance’ to describe what the individual learner brings to the process
through this interaction as opposed to just being a passive observer or receiver of
information - in fact the process is seen as more important than the outcome.
The second year course Graphic Design Studio 3 is an example of this, where students
juxtapose ideas and artefacts to come up with mew ways of doing things and looking at
design issues. As design is a social activity, a very creative way to get students to do this is
to link in with the university’s own corporate agenda which is actually part of their social
world. For example, assessment in the course requires completion of five projects and a
journal. One of the projects asks students to generate an effective communication of the
nature of graphic design for presentation on Open Day, in teams. Another project requires
students to research and analyse information related to UniSA’s Graduate Qualities and
come up with effective ways of visually communicating them. The same project is set in
the Illustration classes, where students actually create seven animated characters that
represent their idea of each quality. The results have been creative, exciting and directly
relevant to the university, but have the dual purpose of allowing the students to actually
engage with the Graduate Qualities in a deeper and more realistic way – a brilliant example
of the teaching-research nexus.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
24
5. Views of divisional staff on the TRN
TellUs2 Survey
In addition to interviews, informal conversations, focus groups and discussions at school
and program team meetings, a survey of Divisional staff using TellUS2 was released on
October 16 and was available via open access for one month. 85 staff members responded
to the survey (a response rate of approx 18%) with nearly 36 pages of text in addition to the
required demographic data and responses to multiple choice questions, indicating great
interest in the project but also providing a lot of raw data. A brief summary of some of the
salient responses follows the presentation of interesting data correlated with employment
status, level of employment and involvement in teaching and research, and beginning with
the distribution of responses by school or centre:
Responses by School / Research Centre, total 85:
C
tu 3
d
de ies
L
La iss
ng a
C
u
SP lt
R
G
O
th
er
ts
se
t tl
em
en
C
O
M
ED
S
A
C
I
A
R
C
PS
Y
SW
P
A
D RT
U
C
IE
VA R
D
R
G
LP
LC
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Responses were received from all schools. Education made up by far the largest cohort
with 29.4% responding, representing the relative size of the school. Communication
accounted for 12.9% of responses. ‘Other’ included Visual Communication Design, CMR,
HRISS and EAS.
Responses by employment status were:
Continuing:
Contract:
Sessional:
Adjunct:
61
12
10
2
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
25
Responses to Question 5, ‘Current workload’, total 85:
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Teaching Research
Mainly
only
only
teaching,
some
research
Mainly
Equal
research, amount of
some
teaching
teaching
and
research
Other
The majority of respondents (37.6%) consider their workload is mainly teaching, with
some research; the second highest response field was for equal amounts of both (22.3%).
Not surprisingly, only two staff reported having ‘research only’ workloads. ‘Other’
included:
- Tutoring and general staff work
- Mainly administration
- Management with research and some teaching
- HDR supervision only, plus research and postgrad studies leadership role
- Program Director
- IT Technical Officer and casual lecturer
- Teaching: research: admin – even split 33:33:33
- Why not a box for consultancy?
Further comments also related to workload issues and heavy teaching loads on top of
administration duties and expectations to comply with RQF and research requirements – a
common theme throughout all the staff consultations for this project. The question of
recognising consultancy compared to research is also one that many staff raised in other
forums, not just for recognition in terms of workload allocation but in terms of research
output and service to the community. In general, the discourse of the teaching-research
nexus and research cultures tend to exclude and de-value consultancy work.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
26
Distribution of responses to Question 7, ‘Do you teach in undergraduate programs?’
by Academic Level
Yes,
exclusively
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
Level E
No level
indicated
Total
A little, eg as Not at all
guest lecturer
14
7
5
1
3
Yes, as well
as in postgrad
programs
3
13
15
3
5
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
-
Total
responses by
level
17
21
22
10
6
9
30
42
7
8
85
The results show, not surprisingly, that most staff identifying as Level A teach only in
undergraduate programs, while those identifying as Level B and C distributed their
responses more to postgraduate as well as undergraduate teaching. It is pleasing to see that
out of the six respondents identifying as Level E, five teach in undergraduate programs.
Level D respondents are distributed quite differently with 4 reporting ‘not at all’, while one
reports teaching exclusively in undergraduate programs. However two of the Level D
respondents not involved in undergraduate teaching reported being in administration and
management roles. The view that the professoriate should contribute to undergraduate
teaching is a popular one and was backed up by the Level D and E staff interviewed for this
project. The results to this question suggest that this is mostly the case for this sample from
the division.
Distribution of responses to Question 11, ‘Is there a particular approach to
understanding research that is unique to your discipline, area, program or school?’
EDS
COM
ART
SWP
PSY
ACI
ARC
DUCIER
Languages &
Cultures Education
Other
Yes
11
5
8
5
3
1
1
1
2
1
No
13
1
Unsure
7
6
No response
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
27
These results support the argument presented in this report that understanding ‘research’ is
a highly contextualised and subjective notion, that there is a correlation between discipline
area and understanding approaches to research, and that many academic staff are unsure
about whether there is a particular approach to understanding research in their own field.
For example, respondents from Education are quite evenly split as to whether there is a
particular approach to research in their field, 11 saying yes and 13 saying no, with quite a
number unsure. This mirrors the comments made by EDS staff earlier in this report, that
“as a group they would not necessarily even agree on what ‘research’ is”. More
respondents from Communication and Social Work / Policy believe there is a particular
approach to research than not (5 to 1), but again a number are unsure (6 and 2 respectively).
Of most interest is the clear result in Art, a discipline area that is usually not presumed to
be associated with a research tradition. The numbers for other discipline areas are too low
to generalise from, but the number of staff reporting ‘unsure’ to this question (26, or
30.5%) reinforces the finding that many academic staff are still not clear about what
constitutes research in their discipline. However, finer grained observations on this issue
came from text responses to Question 12 ‘Can you give some examples of how you ‘do’
research in your discipline area, program or school?’
For example:
There is no one research approach that characterises education. There are however
particular research approaches that characterise science, psychology, sociology etc.
Education takes from all of these
'practice-led research' is a term increasingly used within university art schools at
HDR levels - connects usefully with emphasis within UG programs on experiential
(or experience-led) learning.
Within the area of arts practice, research is an intrinsic part of the creative process. In
this context, research takes place at a personal level; it is a process undertaken by an
artist in exploring and responding to their world, to ideas, events, etc. Students
engaged in making art works are therefore undertaking personal research and
disseminating it through visual and performing arts…
My research tends to be solitary (no one else on campus is working in the same area)
- but I am collaborating with someone else in school on one project which is good.
None of this has much to do with what I teach because we no longer teach courses in
my area of interest
My research is very much interdisciplinary - education, cognitive pscyhology,
philosophy - and as a result I need to engage in various forms of research in my
work...I need for example to have an understanding of empirical research methods, as
well as working from a normative perspective.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
28
In graphic design, all projects need to be based on research. What is the problem?
What are the possible answers to that problem? How do the budget, audience,
production methods, medium etc. affect the process? how do people see, read,
understand shape colour, type, image etc.
A large percentage of the teaching is aimed at professional practice; hence the
research also, often aims to inspect industry practices.
I draw on sociological research (my own and others') to demonstrate how knoweldge
is socially constructed, and how research can reveal knoweldge about "the person in
context" which is critical to social work discipline knowledge and practice
Applied linguistics is a discipline which spans a wide range of approaches to research
- to give examples would not be representative of the discipline as whole.
The question of whether the way in research output is measured has an effect on the TRN
also met with a mixed response. Question 13 asked:
‘Given RQF requirements and DEST publication guidelines, some forms of research
output are given higher status and more recognition than others such as reports,
non-refereed conference papers, media commentary, works of fiction etc. Do you
think this is a barrier to enhancing the nexus between teaching and research for
both staff and students?’
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
While 55 staff strongly agree or agree that this is an issue, 13 are unsure and 17 disagree or
strongly disagree. It is one of the contentious issues in the TRN – with those agreeing
elaborating on their responses with the following examples:
There appears to be too much relevance placed on the 'correct' research publications,
and it becomes a circular process. Little or no credibility is given to industry,
professional, trade or on-line mediums.
I think that this is a case of the established research disciplines 'pulling up the ladder
behind them' so that other newer disciplines cannot threaten their status or financial
'pull'. As a particular example, in panel 13 of the RQF groupings, conference papers
do not count towards the 'metrics' 'except for architecture'. The traditional disciplines
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
29
have a mortgage on the publication status ratings (for example the 'web of science'
citation measurement of publication status, anything that is not 'science' has lower
status). This is not what researchers in other disciplines do. The design, they
choreograph, they write, they work with industry, they create etc. etc.
Some forms of output have a higher impact in the academic community, but often
other forms of research and publication may be better at enhancing student learning
Much of the work I do, which is related to my teaching and research is not considered
research under the RQF.
Practice- based research is often underrated. The hierarchy of research
appropriateness is entrenched and serves to alienate many staff.
Those who disagree with the proposition put in the question supported their position with
responses such as:
No it is not a barrier; excellent teaching is per force based on excellent research.
No, quality needs to be at the heart of the nexus
The refereeing process may be seen as elitism, but essential to provide some form of
standard within disciplines by which research achieves credibility
If people want to be media tarts, serial conference attenders or novel writers there is
an audience for them. The role of research should be to test serious theories relevant
to a particular domain, not just to win a PR war. The university may want both kinds
of activity to occur, but confusing them will undermine any serious academic agenda.
A number of other salient comments on the issue include:
Text books, which often demonstrate significant expertise in presenting information
in a way which allows readers to connect with complex information are not RQF
acceptable. It is easier to get a contract for these books too as publishers can sell
them. They have the potential to influence a lot more people in society than some
scholarly works do
Setting the bar tight and high can deter less confident staff from presenting their
research in forums where they feel confident and comfortable and hence diminish
their activity/profile. Students inevitably lose out - eg not hearing their lecturers as
media experts
Because it creates a disconnect between teaching and research by forcing a focus on
the end product and not the process
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
30
Question 15: ‘The scholarship of teaching – ie critical reflection and systematic
enquiry in relation to teaching methodologies, pedagogies and learning outcomes – is
a recognized aspect of the TRN.’
56 respondents believe the scholarship of teaching is a ‘valid and important area of
research’.
25 respondents believe it is ‘just one aspect of good teaching’
3 respondents believe it is ‘only necessary for evaluation and accountability purposes’
Text responses elaborating on this question include:
This is the most essential part of research in relation to teaching - it is the method by
which any other research becomes influential.
Both a valid and important area of research and just another aspect of good teaching these are by no means mutually exclusive. Research (however methodologically
sound) is but a means to an end.
I understand and support the rationale behind promoting the scholarship of teaching.
We need to be careful, however, to avoid it being seen as the new best bandwagon,
the new stick with which to prod staff
I absolutely think this is an important area of research. What better way to link
teaching to research than to research the process of teaching? It is certainly important
for me, though I am also trying to find ways to integrate my disciplinary research
interests
Learning and teaching are my focus. The problem seems to be the connection
between $ in income and quality of research. I know that the $ is important for buying
time to think but our corporate structure rewards people for money earned, not
necessarily value to the field.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
31
Question 17: Many Divisional academic staff believe that both their teaching and
their research is informed by and inextricably linked with their practice, eg as an
artist, designer, social worker, writer, film producer etc. To what extent would you
agree?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
The link between teaching, research and practice is clearly acknowledged by the majority
of respondents, with only two disagreeing with the proposition. When asked for examples
of practice-based teaching and research, some responses were:
Research is integral to my practice - in that my art emphasises experimentation and
innovation, critical thinking and intuition (& personal reflection). Asking questions
is a key mode of enquiry common both to my teaching and my art practice
My practice base led to the invitation to develop curriculum that ultimately resulted
in my arriving at Unisa to teach. This teaching generated my PhD topic and ongoing
research interests.
My "practice" is teaching. I therefore model good teaching premised upon the
research base of expert teachers and information processing; directed instruction;
experiential learning: my lectures are interactive, I get students to "do" things; they
are experiential; students are not passive recipients of information...they must engage
personally; I call upon prior knowledge; get them to talk to the neighbours,
demonstrate how research informs practice, link theory to the prac placements, etc...
Real-world experience in work relevant to an academic discipline is highly regarded
by students, and work-placements should be considered for some "sheltered
workshop" types who have progressed from being students to being academics
without much "real world" involvement outside of universities as participants, not just
observers.
the profession you are trained in provides a lens through which you see the world and
make meaning of it and engage within it
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
32
We do need to be closer to our fields, and practice is part of that. Unfortunately the
uni does not really allow for that in its structures so we must do it out of hours, in a
voluntary capacity which is more difficult in many ways
The survey also asked staff to describe the nexus between teaching and research in their
own words. The responses show that many academics have given this some consideration
and were able to articulate their definition quite clearly:
My understanding has always been that university lecturers bring expertise and
capacity for deeper thinking from research into their teaching. Effective teaching is
often from the lecturer's area of expertise, as questions and concepts are well known
and formulated, and knowledge is more comprehensive. At the same time, my
teaching experiences have informed new research considerably. TRN also means to
me the scholarship of discipline based teaching
The ability to teach in a given area with an INFORMED approach comes from the
knowledge gained through being involved in DIRECT research. It is not theoretical
and cannot be gained through books. Expertise/innovation and knowledge in
specialised fields is being generated by the people who perform it and therefore
inherently contribute this knowledge to the field
For me, the key lies not in teaching the students up-to-date research emerging from
my own practice (for me, that is the given). The TRN, for me, is more about
facilitating the students' recognition of their own learning as research. At every level
(from first year to third), the goal for me is to help the students to develop increasing
research skill. I am therefore passing on both the content of my discipline's research,
but also the processes of curiosity and interrogation. It is unclear, however, whether
this is also the goal of the students. For many, I'm not sure it is...
It is the glue between theory and practice in the profession,
Without research, teaching is extremely difficult. Integrating concepts into practice
requires a strong commitment to continual learning - and through the learning we
develop stronger teaching skills.
Research informs practice, shapes the curriculum, provides direction for course and
programs. it encourages review and evaluation of practice. In turn it informs our
partners/stakeholders
I don't find the term 'nexus' very useful especially as it is expressed as a singular.
There are a number and range of possible relationships between the two clusters of
practice - teaching and research - and context plays a large part. In my former role as
a learning adviser this relationship was different, though no less important, than it is
in my current role. So therefore I think the search for a 'precise' definition might be a
bit of a side issue.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
33
6. Research training, higher degrees and sessional staff
Supervision of research degrees is a teaching process. To the extent that academics
have higher degree students, they contribute to research. (Tharenou, 2003:27)
Despite this statement, there are distinctly different views among academic staff in the
division as to the nature of teaching at undergraduate level compared with at higher degree
level. Some see supervision as a very different activity from conducting lectures or tutorials
and consider it is not ‘teaching’ as such. There is no doubt that supervising HDR students
contributes to research and research output, but as to whether it can be claimed as
‘teaching’, one view put forward is to let staff determine how it should be classified
according to where it is needed in determining workload. Some schools have distinct
workload models which give a higher loading for HDR supervision than others.
At Monash Faculty of Education for example:
…the strategy has been to spread research supervision across the faculty, which then
results in spreading the teaching workload across the faculty. Hence, there is a nexus
between research and teaching. Very few academics now only teach and very few
academics only supervise higher degree students to make up their workload.
(Tharenou, 2003:27)
While spreading the load is fine in theory, it assumes that all staff are qualified and eligible
to supervise and in the case of UniSA, to be on the supervision register. Similar
implications arise from the recommendations of the Division’s Internal Review of
Honours, which implied that all staff supervising honours students should be on the
register.
A further implication arises from the views of some Research Degree Coordinators in the
division, that their role in research training ‘has nothing to do with undergraduate
education’. This view emerged after a combined meeting of the Divisional Research
Degrees and Teaching and Learning Committees (see the following section). This is a
concern as although this project has focused on undergraduate teaching and research, it is
clear that there are links with HDR programs in a number of key areas:
-
many sessional staff teaching in undergraduate programs are HDR students
sessional staff contribute to the next generation of academic staff
undergraduate programs provide the ‘pipeline’ for future HDR students via
honours pathways
Therefore, the views of HDR students who are also involved in sessional teaching were
sought, via a focus group activity using the ‘world café’ methodology. This process sets up
a number of questions for discussion in small groups which rotate every 30 minutes to
come up with a cumulative and iterative set of qualitative group responses.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
34
The world café process undertaken on November 22 was attended by 13 staff – some
continuing and some sessional – and posed a number of questions around academic
identity, including:
‘Is academic work sustainable?’
‘What will the next generation of academic staff be like?’
While the forum produced a wide range of insights and responses, two opposing views
were put forward of what working in a modern university is like:
1. Some felt that the university was still far removed from the corporate world.
They described the university as a haven with down time, less stress, no shouting,
allowing people to have a family life and the freedom to create and ‘use your brain’.
The freedom to create energises staff through intellectual stimulation. There is
always something to learn about. This haven must be protected – it is the last
bastion for creativity.
2. Too many students, job insecurity, overworked. You never achieve the pinnacle
in academia as there is always more to learn, more to do.
Ironically both perspectives are inclusive of the notion of continual learning – one seeing it
as a positive, the other as a negative. It can be concluded that while the university as a
workplace creates an environment for learning, it is up to individual staff as to whether
they see this as an opportunity or as a threat. For the next generation of academics, learning
can be associated with research in their discipline if they are HDR students, or with
practice-based learning in their field or profession; but there is also a need to learn the
organisational language of the university - sessional staff need to learn how to be strategic
and know how to use the ‘right’ words. A lot of this organisational knowledge is passed on
school meetings that sessional staff are not paid to attend, an issue which schools need to
address.
There are already examples of good practice however – the School of Social Work and
Social Policy held a teaching and learning professional development day in November,
which a number of sessional staff were supported to attend. There is online support and
information available, such as the Sessional Staff web page linked to the Divisional
Teaching and Learning home page which contains links to useful information, but sessional
staff need to be made more aware of this. The Division holds induction days for new staff
including sessional staff, but ongoing support systems may still be lacking. There is a
Sessional Staff Advisory Group that is a sub-committee of Divisional TALC – however
this group did not meet for the entire six months of the fellowship, and it is noted that the
membership as listed does not include sessional staff from Mawson Lakes.
A comment in the staff survey noted that ‘part-time or sessional staff are often doing most
of the teaching in Years 1 and 2 of undergraduate degrees, that these are foundational years
in which to introduce students to research, but part-time or sessional staff are not always
engaged in research’. While this is an important consideration, of the 10 sessional staff
responding to the survey, only 3 reported their workload as teaching only – 5 reported
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
35
teaching with some research, 1 reported equal amounts of both and 1 reported having a
‘research only’ position. Sessional staff enrolled in a higher degree report for example that
‘the PhD influences teaching, especially in how to do academic writing, and how to find
information – foundational research skills that are passed on to students’. Therefore the
research activity of sessional staff needs to be not only encouraged but validated and
utilized. Research centres and concentrations within the division have an important role to
play in this process. Simple things like encouraging sessional staff to maintain home pages
with details of their teaching and research interests and publications etc would be a good
start.
HDR candidates who are not formally engaged in sessional teaching are already involved
in working with honours students and should also be considered as contributors to
undergraduate teaching, through guest lectures and seminars.
7. Divisional Committee Structure
The three divisional standing committees relevant to this project are the Research
Committee, the Research Degrees Committee (RDC), and Teaching and Learning
Committee (TALC), chaired respectively by the Dean: Research, the Dean: Research
Degrees and the Dean: Teaching and Learning. There is some overlap with the first two
committees as the Dean: Research Degrees, the Research Development Coordinator and
the Manager: Academic Library Services attend both meetings. However, while the
Research Committee includes Research Portfolio Leaders from the schools, and the Dean:
Research is also a member of the HRISS Steering Committee, it is not clear how divisional
research centres and concentrations are represented or whether research active staff such as
HRISS Key Researchers have any input to the meetings and outcomes of this committee.
The divisional TALC and Research Degrees Committee held a combined meeting on
September 25 2007, specifically to address the teaching-research nexus. Apart from the
outcome of the discussion of strategies to embed the TRN in undergraduate programs (see
below), this was a significant meeting in bringing the two committees together for the first
time. However some resistance was noted from Research Degrees Coordinators in seeing
the relevance of their attendance eg, with comments to the effect of ‘what does the role of
RDC have to do with undergrads?’. This raises an important issue – that the broader picture
of research education across all levels of undergraduate and postgraduate programs needs
to be made explicit, compared with those higher degrees that are labeled ‘research degrees’,
and that RDCs need to be clear about their role in promoting research training at all levels.
The Research Office introduced a draft position description for RDCs last year, but it is
modelled on the one for program directors and focuses more on the administrative rather
than the educative role. It is also not clear what the status is of this position description or
whether it has been adopted widely.
The academic fellow attended all divisional TALC meetings during the fellowship, and the
TRN was not only on the agenda of this committee but was taken back to school TALCs by
school representatives. Outcomes of this include the aforementioned teaching and learning
day for the School of Social Work and Social Policy and a presentation by the academic
fellow to the school TALC; participation in the School of International Studies and Louis
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
36
Laybourne-Smith school TALCs; a presentation to DUCIER academic committee, a
presentation to a meeting of divisional program directors, and a forthcoming presentation to
the School of Art retreat and planning day.
Therefore it appears that divisional TALC is effective in contributing to the discussion of
the TRN at school and program level and it is considered that through this process a good
understanding of the TRN and strategies for embedding it in undergraduate programs is
occurring at the level of teaching and learning. More needs to be done to make the links
through the Research and Research Degrees committees however, particularly in the role of
RDCs and Key Researchers. A combined meeting of these two committees is scheduled for
April 2008, which will again be a first, and may provide the opportunity to emphasise the
broader picture of research education across all levels and programs.
It is worth noting that the School of Communications has combined its TALC and
Research committees into one integrated committee – a model that other schools may be
interested in adopting.
Addressing the TRN at institutional, school and curriculum levels - responses from
combined TALC / DRDC meeting September 25, 2007
The problem of defining research that is recognized and counted by the institution was
reinforced, with the question asked: ‘Is non-RQF work still ‘research’?’ It was also noted
that research has higher status than teaching and historically there has been a divide
between the two activities, reinforced by separate grants and award structures etc.
Recognising a broad range of activity as research is important so staff feel confident they
can value their activity, enhance their reputation and feel empowered.
At the school level there are tensions and structural difficulties in attending to both research
and teaching issues, eg committees, meetings, coordinators etc. At the divisional level there
are additional administrative layers that cause major difficulties in understanding
complexities of relationships and operations. Further layers occur at Research Institute
level. Avoiding time-consuming duplication at School, Divisional, Institutional level
therefore is a priority.
Identifying research activity was seen as an issue. Access to a Divisional database of
research skills so teaching staff can access research specialisations and expertise for guest
lectures was seen as a priority. (Note: this has been addressed)
‘Teaching only’ positions exist but this is not necessarily good. We need to ask ourselves
what distinguishes teaching in universities from other institutions.
An integrated approach to research training in undergrad programs is needed, perhaps a
‘culture of integration’ could be encouraged.
At the curriculum level, a number of strategies and issues were identified:




Teach content using a variety of methods
Vary assessment requirements
Reinforce how research matters in future profession
Emphasise that content is the outcome of research
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
37








Include techniques such as PBL, self-assessment, peer review, self reflection, learn
how to think, learn how to learn
Take a whole of program approach to developing research skills – examine the
relationship of courses within programs and across programs
Marketing focus is on employment after graduating, research methodology should
be part of marketing
More rigorous assessment at Year 1 level needed...pressure from CEI / SETs to be
‘popular’ compromises rigour
Emphasis on data production as well as analysis right from Year 1
Student/co-authored papers with fora for presentation of papers in school/division
3rd year - review of methodologies, quantitative vs qualitative
Tension between what the profession dictates and staff wanting to ‘teach’ their own
research – a balance is needed
Awards and Grants
Teaching and research are driven by accountability requirements that are separate eg
RQF, publications audits compared with CEIs and SETs, GCEQs etc. Similarly the range
of awards and grants available at divisional, university and centre level tend to reinforce
the separation between teaching and research. The Learning and Teaching Grants process
in 2007 required applicants to demonstrate relevance to the Teaching and Learning
Framework, and the two priority projects awarded focus on the TRN and service
learning. This will encourage more projects in developing the nexus, but awards are still
problematic, as they are based on similar evaluation metrics as accountability
requirements eg supported researcher, supported teacher etc. Some staff see these as
unattainable because of their discipline area, alternative research output, or the way they
teach (eg entirely by distance learning, notable for low CEI/SET response rates).
The EASS Research awards celebrated at the zoo in 2007 used criteria that were seen by
some staff as very mechanistic e.g. based on income or completion rates, not on content
or outcome. A lot of mention was made of the ‘gold standard’ which emphasized
competition, may cause people to withdraw from the process and not realize their full
potential. Although academic life has a history of being elitist and competitive, it might
be possible to apply different criteria to recognizing not necessarily ‘excellence’ or the
‘gold standard’ but good practice in rewarding innovation in achieving the TRN.
This could be done using a different process to lengthy and time-consuming applications
and panel selections. Staff could nominate examples of innovation in achieving the TRN
in their school / program / centre, either own or their colleagues. A pool of nominees is
then created. One or two members of this pool are then invited to visit the class, studio,
site, screen etc and observe the innovation in action for each nomination. Awards are
recommended according to pre-determined criteria. Where the teaching and learning
activity is not based on real time interaction that can be observed either face-to-face or
online, the nominee has the opportunity to discuss it in conversation. This way, good
practice is peer rewarded and staff have an opportunity to observe good practice outside
their own school / program / centre – a great professional development opportunity as
well as contributing to their toolkit of strategies for achieving the TRN.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
38
8. Program approval and review processes
The revised Coursework Program Approval manual and templates released in November
2007 clearly identify the links with the Teaching and Learning Framework and spell out the
requirements for incorporating the three strategies to engage students, including the TRN,
as this extract from the template for new coursework programs shows:
6.4
Student Engagement
All programs at UniSA attempt to actively engage students in learning, rather than merely transmit a body of knowledge.
At UniSA we attempt to engage students using three main strategies:
a) Practice-based Learning
b) Teaching – Research Nexus
c) Service Learning
These strategies are to be supported by the creation of a Flexible Learning Environment to be described in the subsequent
section.
In the sections below, you are asked to describe how each of these elements are developed in the program design.
6.4.2 Teaching – Research Nexus
The teaching – research nexus is defined as:
‘The provision of learning experiences that foster connections between learning, teaching and research and strengthen
student development of the Qualities of a University of South Australia Graduate.’
At its core is the concept of critical enquiry.
All UniSA undergraduate programs are required to demonstrate a connection with the research of the University.
There are many different types of learning environment which can be used here. Some are:

Capstone projects

Open-ended investigative projects

Projects in industry/professions

Projects in research centres and institutes

Problem-based activities
Program developers need to briefly identify where and the type of these opportunities which exist within the new program.
These should be related to the development of indicators of appropriate graduate qualities.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/student/default.asp#indic
Guideline/Instruction:
Identify the courses (3 examples at most) in which these learning experiences are located. Describe how students will
experience learning that is integrated with research.
Describe how senior University researchers will be involved in delivery of the program.
UniSA internal resource links
More information about the Teaching – Research Nexus at UniSA is available at
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/staff/practice/trnexus.asp
Course
<Insert text here>
Teaching – Research Nexus learning opportunities
The same requirements are included in the new templates for major amendments to
programs and courses, Groups 1 and 2. While a definition of the TRN is given and some
examples of ‘learning environments’ which can be considered are provided, staff will need
to be able to identify teaching-research links in a number of courses with examples. These
also need to relate to the Graduate Qualities, which staff are generally familiar with as well
as their use in program design and development.
Policy A35A-10 in relation to program evaluation is under review, as the STEP 2010
Project has overtaken the 2007 Annual Program Review process, and a revised template is
not yet available.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
39
9. Conclusion and discussion of principles, recommendations and strategies for
enhancing the teaching-research nexus
Identifying the views of Divisional staff regarding the TRN and what it is
Firstly, the findings of this report show that most academics assume the link between
teaching and research is self-evident, but this may not be apparent to students. Staff may
say ‘how could you not link teaching and research?’, but the question is, are students
experiencing - and understanding - this link?
Academic development should include opportunities for staff to explore their
own epistemological beliefs and identity as academics in the context of their
particular field and how this is communicated through both their teaching and
their research.
Recommendation 1.1
It is recommended that Heads of Schools devise key opportunities to enable staff to
explore and discuss epistemological beliefs and academic identity, for example by
building this in to school development activities.
Recommendation 1.2
It is recommended that Teaching@UniSA and the core courses in the Graduate
Certificate in University Teaching incorporate this opportunity for all new academic
staff mandated to undertake these programs.
Recommendation 1.3
It is recommended that all sessional staff are encouraged and supported to complete
Teaching @UniSA
Recommendation 1.4
It is recommended that sessional staff are encouraged and supported to make links
between their teaching, research and practice through paid attendance at school
meetings and professional development activities.
Strategies for achieving Principle 1 have already been demonstrated by some schools:
1. Architecture and Design undertook a ‘stocktake’ of existing practices in each program to
determine:
 staff teaching in their field of expertise
 students understand that staff do research and can identify staff research areas
 each course has a research component (where appropriate) and students can identify
it as a research component
 courses have research outcomes for students and staff
All staff attended a two-hour workshop at which program directors shared this information
and individual staff showcased examples of current teaching/research relationships and
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
40
outcomes. The Head of School observed that he learned more about the staff and programs
in his school in those two hours than in the previous two years.
2. Social Work and Social Policy held a Teaching and Learning day which was inclusive of
sessional staff who were paid to attend. The day included input from the teaching-research
nexus fellow, the Dean: Teaching and Learning and an Academic Developer. The Head of
School noted that the discussion reinforced that although the TRN is ‘self-evident’, this
can’t be assumed and needs to be empirically tested.
The school also held a ‘research week’ in December with no school meetings scheduled for
the week at end of the Study Period after teaching had finished. Staff met on Monday to
discuss plans for writing/publishing, then went away to write, not meeting again until
Friday to compare notes. It worked well and the school plans to do it twice this year at the
end of SP2 and SP5.
3. The School of Communication has proposed a new model for delivering teaching - 3
week intensive blocks, followed by 3 weeks off for staff to write and do research while
students work on projects. This is a radical but creative proposal.
Practice as the basis of teaching and research
Secondly, when discussing the nature of the TRN, staff in most of the schools talk about
their practice as much as teaching and research. In Architecture and Design for example,
most staff have a background in art and design practice and this not only forms their
approach to teaching and research but gives them credibility with students. The same
occurs in Art, Social Work, media Arts etc. The focus on practice-based learning and
experiential learning in the T& L framework reinforces this, but somehow the ‘P’ needs
to be built into the T- R model.
At the same time, it must be reinforced that the undergraduate programs in the division
are almost all vocational in nature and geared towards a professional qualification. Hence
field experience and experiential learning are central to most programs, with some
placements leading directly to employment eg at least 50% of Social Work placements
lead to job offers. This means that in SWP very few students go on to Honours as they
tend to go straight into the workforce. The same occurs in Unaipon school programs.
Therefore there is a tension between aspiring to become a research-intensive university
and maintaining our status and market brand as an applied university.
2
Recognise and acknowledge the importance of practice as both a basis of staff
expertise and teaching / research interests, and as a foundational aspect of
undergraduate professional programs and the teaching-research nexus.
Recommendation 2.1
It is recommended that academic staff without a practice base in their field undertake
work or field placements as professional development; as students in most
undergraduate programs undertake field placements as a recognized form of
experiential learning
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
41
Reviewing course design and assessment in a minimum of one program in each of the
eight schools
It is apparent that some schools/programs are already well ahead in acknowledging the
nexus and building it into course design, although as noted, understanding of what the
TRN actually means is quite varied and often assumed. Refer to Appendix 1 for a matrix
of undergraduate programs by research training, and Sections 3 and 4 for a detailed
discussion of one program in each school.
In general, research is conceptualised and taught differently in the various discipline
fields and subject areas, reinforcing the discipline-specific nature of the TRN that is
supported in the literature. Research is therefore introduced in various ways in the
schools. In some undergrad programs, it is integrated into first year-first semester
courses. In other programs social inquiry methods are introduced in second year. In one
program research methods are only offered in third year as part of preparation for
honours.
However course design and assessment in the majority of courses in the programs
reviewed include examples of problem-based methods, evidence-based enquiry, using
research processes and skills, conducting independent and group research, testing
hypotheses and conducting field work. Case Study 5 provides the example of practitioner
research which combines both the research training and practitioner development aspects
of a vocational program by requiring students to experience an integrated set of research
skills based in practice as a culmination of their undergraduate studies.
This exemplifies the notion of developing a culture of inquiry for both research training
and a pathway to higher degrees, as well as to develop research values and inquiry methods
to take into the profession, the career and the world of work. Rather than looking at
individual research methods courses, this requires a whole-of-program approach, which is
already occurring in some areas.
3
Schools and program teams should adopt a whole-of-program approach to
developing a culture of inquiry and a research orientation to the field or
profession, making research skills visible and valid for all students, rather than
relying on research methods courses only.
Recommendation 3.1
It is recommended that annual PER and Program Approval processes for
undergraduate programs incorporate a review of the way in which research training
can be sequenced across the whole of the program.
Recommendation 3.2
It is recommended that the Learning and Teaching Unit develop a list of specific
examples of learning activities designed to enhance the TRN for each Graduate
Quality to assist staff in developing Coursework Program Approvals.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
42
Recommendation 3.3
It is recommended that the Division monitor the outcomes of the Research Skills
Development (RSD) framework trial in the School of COM in SP2 2008, and take up
the offer of workshops and information sessions on the RSD framework by Adelaide
University CLPD, for staff to consider the framework in reviewing research training
in undergraduate programs.
The RSD is a sophisticated tool developed by Adelaide University’s Centre for Learning
and Professional Development (CLPD) http://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/rsd/
The framework compares two axes – facet of inquiry or levels of engagement with
knowledge and information eg, organize, synthesise, evaluate, communicate; with level of
student autonomy from Level I ‘closed inquiry with high degree of structure/guidance’ to
Level V ‘open inquiry with self-determined guidelines’.
The CLPD has received Carrick funding to trial the RSD framework in a number of
universities in 2008. As an outcome of this fellowship, the framework will be trialled in the
UniSA course Digital Media Techniques (INFT 1014), involving a pre-test of students’
understanding of research, modifying assessment requirements, then evaluating the course
outcomes.
Another model for considering a whole-of-program approach to research training includes
the matrix already put forward by the Dean: Research for a sequenced approach to the TRN
across a four year program (Appendix 2).
Identifying the teaching profile in these programs and identifying research active staff
who do or can effectively contribute to teaching in undergraduate programs
As a representative sample of academic staff, respondents to the survey (Section 5,
question 5) show 37.6% consider their workload is mainly teaching, with some research;
22.3% consider their workload is equal amounts of both. Staff at all levels teach in
undergraduate programs including the professoriate. It is also noted that two HRISS
professorial chairs contribute to teaching in SWP and EDS. However, one research-only
professor reported their willingness to be a guest lecturer but ‘they have never been asked’.
The Directory of Research Expertise is available for identifying staff, but firstly they need
to register and secondly, it only reports via RFCD codes which are very general and not
related to teaching interests http://www.unisa.edu.au/DORE. However it does link to staff
home pages where more detail can be found, if the information has been kept up to date. To
facilitate this, the academic fellow requested that the staff directory
http://www.unisa.edu.au/directory/ now include a search option ‘Search for staff by
teaching interest’. This is now available.
4
Encourage staff to invite contribution to teaching in undergraduate programs
from research active staff across schools, centres and institutes, particularly the
professoriate.
Recommendation 4.1
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
43
It is recommended that potential guest lecturers are identified via the directory of
research expertise or by searching the staff directory under ‘teaching interests’.
Recommendation 4.2
It is recommended that all staff - continuing, contract and sessional - regularly update
and maintain their staff home pages including details of teaching interests and
research interests.
Recommendation 4.3
It is recommended that HDR candidates not formally engaged in sessional teaching
are invited to contribute to undergraduate teaching through guest lectures, seminars
and workshops.
Defining research
It is also important to note that while some forms of research output have a higher impact
in the academic community, often other forms of research and publication may be better at
enhancing student learning. Therefore the definition of ‘research active’ is also contested.
See question 13 Section 5 for a sample of staff opinions on this issue. Research output in
the Art and Design fields for example has only recently been recognised as equivalent to
publishing scholarly papers. The SASA gallery as an accredited artspace allows staff to
maintain their art practice as well as exhibit their work and claim this as research output.
Staff involved in practice-based activities or producing textbooks, novels or artefacts which
contribute to teaching also need to have their work counted and be recognized as ‘research
active’.
5
Develop a process for recognizing and validating research output that is not
currently included in RQF measures and publications data collection yet
contributes directly to undergraduate teaching.
Recommendation 5.1
It is recommended that the Division develop a process for recognizing and validating
research output that is not currently counted under external and internal publications
audits and measures.
Recommendation 5.2
It is recommended that the research activities of sessional staff and their contribution
to teaching and learning are recognized and acknowledged.
Developing a Divisional database of case studies based on the findings of the program
mapping
See section 4. These case studies are included on the FLC Teaching and Learning
Framework site along with case studies from other divisions and universities, via the
Step2010 website:
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learn/genericcorporate1/?PATH=/Resources/tlfrwk/Step2010/&default=Welcome.htm
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
44
Identifying the effectiveness of the program approval and review templates in terms
of achieving explicit TRN strategies within programs
See section 8. This links with Recommendation 3.2. However, the LTU could also be
involved in assisting staff with the additional tasks required, based on findings of this
report and the case studies.
Examining the Divisional committee structure in order to identify where such
arrangements enhance development of the TRN, and review award and grant criteria
with a view to rewarding innovation in achieving the TRN
As discussed in Section 7.
6
Reinforcing the recent reviews of honours programs in the division and the
university, develop a more strategic approach to strengthening the links between
undergraduate and post graduate research training.
Recommendation 6.1
It is recommended that the promotion of multiple pathways to research is coordinated
between Research Degrees Coordinators, Honours Coordinators and Research
Portfolio Leaders at school and program levels.
Recommendation 6.2
It is recommended that clearer lines of communication are established between the
various teaching and learning and research committees at school and divisional levels
and all academic staff.
7
Reinforcing the Vice Chancellor’s ‘New Horizons’ discussion paper, recognize
and reward high performance and innovation in achieving the TRN
Recommendation 7.2
It is recommended that a process of evidence-based peer review be investigated for
awarding high achievement and innovation in three areas – teaching, research and
enhancing the teaching-research nexus.
Identifying how the research capacities and activities of postgraduate students might
be better utilized within undergraduate teaching
The Full Spectrum Scholarships commencing in 2008 to enable HDR students to undertake
the Graduate Certificate in Education (University Teaching) while also carrying out
sessional teaching duties is a positive attempt to support the development of the next
generation of academic staff. It will be important to monitor the progress of the first cohort
to determine if this work and study program is not too demanding and achieves its stated
outcomes. As discussed in Section 6, HDR students contribute to the academic community
but experience less opportunities for input to school decision-making and course
development.
See Recommendation 1.3, 1.4, 4.3 and 5.2
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
45
Working with and supporting current TRN development projects within the Division
During the fellowship a successful application for a Teaching and Learning Priority
Project grant was awarded to Associate Professor Ingrid Day, Dr Denise Wood, Professor
Drew Dawson, Dr Sheila Scutter, Dale Wache & Dr Tom Stehlik (Division EASS,
Communication, Health Sciences, FLC) The project: Strategies for improving retention
and strengthening the teaching and research nexus in the first-year undergraduate
curriculum will commence in 2008. The current fellowship duration of six months was
only able to skim the surface of the TRN across the entire division. To support this and
other projects as well as provide ongoing advice to schools around embedding the TRN
in the curriculum development arising from the Step 2010 project, a dedicated project
officer is recommended, ideally full-time but at least at 0.5.
8
Sustain and further develop the process of investigating and enhancing the
teaching-research nexus both within the Division of EAS as well as more widely
across other divisions.
Recommendation 8.1
It is recommended that a project officer position be established to support ongoing
divisional projects and curriculum development initiatives around the teachingresearch nexus.
Recommendation 8.2
It is recommended that the Divisional Deans and the Academic Development Team in
the Learning and Teaching Unit are adequately resourced and supported to sustain the
momentum of the TRN project through the implementation phase of STEP 2010 both
within the division as well as university-wide.
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
46
References:
Brew, Angela, 2007, Research and teaching: Beyond the divide, Palgrave Macmillan:
Hampshire
DEEWR, 2008, Higher Education Research Data Collection: Specifications for the
collection of 2007 data, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/8A941BE5-D558-40049C62-63CA08A34424/19678/2008HERDCSpecificationsFinalpdf.pdf, Australian
Government, accessed January 15, 2008
DEST, 2005, Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in
Australia, Submissions in Response to the Issues Paper,
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/researc
h_quality_framework/rqf_subs.htm, accessed January 14, 2008
Flood, Adele, Ling, Peter and Green, Pam, 2007, The RQF and the teaching research
nexus, Academic Development and Support, Swinburne University of Technology
Jenkins, Alan and Healey, Mick, 2005, Institutional strategies to link teaching and
research, Higher Education Academy: UK,
Krause, Kerri-Lee, Arkoudis, Sophie and Green, Ali, 2007, Teaching-research linkages:
Opportunities and challenges for practice and policy, Stimulus Paper: Carrick TRN Forum,
August 29 and 30
Lee, Peter, 2007, Transforming teaching and learning, Memorandum to Senior
Management group, University of South Australia, August 3
Lee, Peter, 2007, Teaching-Research Nexus at the University of South Australia,
Discussion Draft, February
NHMRC, 2007, Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, Australian
Government, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/r39.pdf
Oxford Brookes University, LINK: Good practice resource database,
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/LTRC/fifteen-points.htm!, accessed July 31, 2007
RAE, 2001, A guide to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise,
http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/other/raeguide.pdf, accessed January 14, 2008
Tharenou, Phyllis, 2003, ‘Vignettes illustrating the teaching-research nexus’, Appendix I in
The teaching-research nexus: A discussion paper, Monash University Centre for Higher
Education Quality
Wareham, Terry and Trowler, Paul, 2007, Deconstructing and reconstructing ‘The
Teaching-research Nexus’: Lessons from Art and Design,
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/nexus/outputs.htm
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
47
List of interviewees and contributors
Dr Jenny Barnett
Di Barrett
Monica Behrend
Dr Di Bills
Dr Tracey Bretag
Dr Janet Bryan
Dr Deborah Churchman
Dr Jonathan Crichton
Dr Robert Crocker
Dr Vicki Crowley
Jeannie Daniels
Dr Margaret Faulkner
Dr Peter Gale
Stuart Gluth
Cathy Hammond
Dr Anne Herbert
Margaret Hicks
Andrew Hill
Professor Alan Jenkins
Veronika Kelly
Dr Sharron King
Dr Sue King
Mary Knights
Anne Lawless
Lyn Leaney
David Morris
Dr Margaret Peters
Professor Barbara Pocock
Dr Rob Ranzijn
Professor Alan Reid
Dr Sharon Russo
Harry Savelsberg
Dr Michele Simons
Dr Barbara Spears
Dr Tangi Steen
Jared Thomas
Dr Katherine Vadura
Stephen Ward
Dr Sarah Wendt
Dr Victoria Whitington
Dr Peter Willis
Dr Denise Wood
Final report: The Teaching- Research Nexus in the Division of EAS
48