International Journal For Academic Development: Based Teaching

This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]
On: 25 October 2012, At: 18:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal for Academic

Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20
International perspectives on
student awareness, experiences
and perceptions of research:
implications for academic developers in
implementing research‐based teaching
and learning
a b c
Nancy Turner , Brad Wuetherick & Mick Healey
a
Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design, University of
the Arts London, London, UK
b
Student Services, Faculty of Agriculture, Life and Environmental
Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
c
Centre for Active Learning, University of Gloucestershire,
Cheltenham, UK
Version of record first published: 05 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Nancy Turner, Brad Wuetherick & Mick Healey (2008): International
perspectives on student awareness, experiences and perceptions of research: implications for
academic developers in implementing research‐based teaching and learning, International Journal
for Academic Development, 13:3, 199-211
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440802242333
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 18:41 25 October 2012
International Journal for Academic Development
Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2008, 199–211
International perspectives on student awareness, experiences and

perceptions of research: implications for academic developers in
implementing research-based teaching and learning
Nancy Turnera*, Brad Wuetherickb and Mick Healeyc
aCentre
for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design, University of the Arts London, London, UK;
bStudent
Services, Faculty of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada; cCentre for Active Learning, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK
(Received 15 January 2008; final version received 19 May 2008)

Taylor and Francis Ltd
RIJA_A_324400.sgm
International
10.1080/13601440802242333
1360-144X
Original
Taylor
302008
13
nancy.turner@arts.ac.uk
NancyTurner
00000September
&Article
Francis
(print)/1470-1324
Journal2008
for Academic
(online)
Development
This paper explores the implications of the effective integration of research, teaching and
learning for academic development through the lens of an international multi-
institutional comparison of student perceptions of research and its impact on their
learning environment. The study, with a sample of over 500 final-year undergraduate
students across three institutions in the UK and Canada, represents a spectrum of
research and teaching intensive universities and is one of the largest exploring
undergraduate student perceptions of research in the linking teaching and research
literature. The results indicate a complex relationship between student perceptions and
experiences of research and the type of institution, as well as the individual, institutional
and national context. They also inform the discussion of particular issues that academic
developers face and the strategies they use to improve the integration of research and
teaching to benefit the undergraduate learning experience in their institution.
Cet article explore les implications, pour le développement pédagogique, de l’intégration

effective de la recherche, de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage à l’aide de la lentille
d’une comparaison internationale multi institutionnelle des perceptions étudiantes à
l’égard de la recherche et de leur impact sur l’environnement d’apprentissage. L’étude,
reposant sur un échantillon de plus de 500 étudiants en dernière année de 1 er cycle,
provenant de trois institutions au Royaume-Uni et au Canada, représente un spectre
d’universités centrées sur l’enseignement ou sur la recherche. L’étude constitue une des
recherches les plus importantes au sujet des perceptions étudiantes à l’égard de la
recherche dans la littérature portant sur le lien entre l’enseignement et la recherche. Les
résultats indiquent une relation complexe entre les perceptions et les expériences des
étudiants, et le type d’institution, de même qu’avec les contextes individuel,
institutionnel et national. Les résultats contribuent aussi à la discussion de questions
particulières auxquelles les conseillers pédagogiques font face ainsi que les stratégies que
ceux-ci utilisent en vue d’améliorer l’intégration de la recherche et de l’enseignement de
façon à en faire bénéficier l’expérience d’apprentissage au 1 er cycle au sein de leur
institution.
Keywords: teaching–research nexus; student perceptions of research; student
experiences of research; linking teaching and research; academic development
As societal expectations grow for universities to be both centres of research and innovation
and sites for high quality education the exploration of student perceptions of the research
*Corresponding author. Email: nancy.turner@arts.ac.uk
ISSN 1360-144X print/ISSN 1470-1324 online

© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13601440802242333
http://www.informaworld.com
200 N. Turner et al.
mandate of their university is of increasing importance. There have been a number of studies
that have focused on the correlation between teaching and research outcomes, most
famously a meta-analysis conducted by Hattie and Marsh (1996). They concluded that there
was no correlation between commonly used measures of teaching and research excellence.
“It should cease to be surprising that the relationship between teaching and research is zero,
and it would be more useful to investigate ways to increase the relationship” (Hattie &
Marsh, 1996, p. 533).
Subsequent studies have investigated ways to do this. There have been a number of stud-
ies exploring the views of academic staff pertaining to this issue (Brew, 2006; Robertson &
Bond, 2001). There has also been a focus on defining approaches to the integration of
research, teaching and learning with general agreement on four main approaches: learning
about others’ research; learning to do research; learning through the research process; and
pedagogic research (Brew, 2006; Healey, 2005a; Jenkins, Breen, Lindsay & Brew, 2003).
Most students experience research through the subject they are studying in one or more of
the first three ways.

It is becoming increasingly important in most higher education (HE) systems for the
student voice to be heard as tuition costs rise and the role of the student as a consumer
becomes more prevalent. It is therefore important to identify and acknowledge the percep-
tions and experiences of students regarding the integration of teaching and research as
universities struggle to be accountable for their multifaceted roles in society. Previous stud-
ies on undergraduate students’ perceptions of research have primarily relied on focus
groups, interviews, or surveys with a relatively small sample size (Jenkins, Blackman,
Lindsay & Paton-Saltzberg, 1998; Neumann, 1994; Robertson & Blackler, 2006; Zamorski,
2002). Neumann (1994) found research to have positive benefits to students including
course credibility and relevant, current course content. Additionally, the research interests
of staff gave students the opportunity to view instructors as “real people” and to relate on a
level of interest and enthusiasm in the same area of study. Jenkins et al. (1998) reported that
students’ own motivation and interest in a subject area often stemmed from instructor
enthusiasm which had roots in the staff member’s research interests. While research
activities may be advantageous, students often perceive them as an “extra” to what they
believe is the primary requirement of a university, the provision of quality undergraduate
teaching. Jenkins et al. (1998) report students prioritising the need for teaching staff who
are available, able to communicate course content effectively and involve and interest
students in the subject as a priority that should not be overshadowed by research activity.
The research in this area indicates the significance students place on research activities
as central to university activity and ethos and clearly some students have a sense of prox-
imity to, and/or participation in, research (Robertson & Blackler 2006). However, shock has
been expressed regarding the “level of alienation that some students expressed” (Zamorski,
2002, p. 419), some seeing research as “hidden from them” (Robertson & Blackler, 2006,
p. 227). Students do not view themselves as stakeholders in the research process. Drawing
on Brew’s notions of academic communities of practice, Robertson and Blacker (2006)
argue that student frustration manifests when participation in the academic community is
delayed and when they are unable to relate their current learning to their perception of that
research community.
Most institutions, but most notably research-intensive institutions, assert that a connection
exists between staff research and the student learning experience. To test this assertion this
study examines how student awareness, experiences and perceptions of research vary
between three institutions with different levels of research intensity in two different countries.
In order to facilitate the restructuring of the undergraduate curriculum there is an explicit
International Journal for Academic Development 201
role for academic developers to work with academic staff in their particular institutional
context to build on the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages of current efforts to
integrate teaching and research.
Context for the study

Institutions across Europe, North America and Australasia have been grappling with the
most effective and efficient ways to integrate teaching and research. A research-intensive
institution in Canada (CanRI), a research-intensive institution in the UK (UKRI) and a less
research-intensive institution in the UK (UKLRI) have recently completed separate studies
exploring student awareness, experience and perception of research in their undergraduate
learning environment using the same research instrument. As a comparison of this type
across institutions had not previously been completed, it was felt that an analysis of the data
would uniquely contribute to research in this area. Thus the institutional data were
combined and analysed. Characteristics of each institution, including those used to categor-
ise the institutions regarding their varied research intensivity are outlined in Table 1.
The analysis reported here was undertaken to determine if: (1) awareness of staff
research; (2) student experiences of engaging with research; and (3) student perceptions of
impact of staff research on their learning environment, varied across the three institutions.
While international comparisons are valuable, there are several significant obstacles to
undertaking such studies due to the distinct nature of the national HE systems. The length
of undergraduate programmes is four years in Canada and three in the UK, however it is
assumed that at the end of the degree the graduates are comparable in knowledge, ability
and experience due to its comparability in the international job market and its transferability
for entry into postgraduate study across both HE sectors. In Canada, only a small proportion
of undergraduate students complete a dissertation, while a majority of students in the UK
complete a dissertation in their final year. Canada has no comprehensive system of govern-
ment benchmarking of quality for research or teaching. The only publicly available set of
institutional rankings are generated by various media outlets through a limited data set. The
UK, on the other hand, has federally mandated quality assessment programmes for both
teaching and research that inform publicly available league tables.
Despite these differences in the nature of the systems and the institutional environments,
there are also many similarities in the pressures faced in an increasingly globalised HE
system. For example, there are similar pressures to enhance the quality of teaching, to make
institutions more accountable and to concentrate research into fewer institutions. As a
Table 1. Characteristics of the universities at time of survey.
CanRI UKRI UKLRI
Academic staff 1750 400 387
Undergraduates 29,000 5500 6500
Postgraduates 6000 1300 1400
Faculties 17 3 3
Funds from teaching sources (as % c55% 67% 73%
of total external funding)
University Group Group of 13 Pre-1992 Post-1992
Research Assessment Exercise 2001 N/A* Ranked in top 20% Ranked in last 40%
*Ranked fifth of 15 in the MacLean’s Canadian University rankings of Medical Doctoral Universities – the
category of University acknowledged as most research-intensive in Canada.
consequence, many countries are developing increasingly differentiated systems of HE in

which institutions play different roles.
Methods
The survey used by the three institutions was developed by Healey, Jordan, Pell and Short
(2008). The language used within the survey was adjusted slightly for each university to
take account of the national and institutional context. The survey is divided into three main
areas exploring the students’ awareness of research within their institution (two questions
presenting a list from which students select items they are aware of), the students’ experi-
ence with research (one question presenting a list from which students select items they
have experienced), and the students’ perception of how research impacted their learning
environment (two questions presenting a list from which students select positive and
negative impacts and eight statements which students respond to on a five-point Likert scale
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). In addition to the quantitative questions,

opportunities for more qualitative responses were provided within the survey allowing
students to articulate examples of positive and negative experiences with research. The
UKLRI survey was undertaken in 2002 and the other two in 2004. All three institutions
distributed the survey in the middle of the spring term, CanRI and UKLRI by email and
UKRI handed out on paper. CanRI and UKLRI randomly selected students across all
departments for distribution. UKRI randomly selected classes in each faculty to visit and
distribute questionnaires. The combined response rate across the three institutions was 16%.
To facilitate comparability, analysis has been restricted to responses received from final-
year undergraduate students. A total of 515 students were included in this analysis, with
60% from CanRI, 9% from UKRI, and 32% from UKLRI.
Statistical analysis was completed by a crosstab chi-square analysis of significant
difference across all three institutions which does not assume equal distribution of data.
Results with p ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. Post hoc chi square analysis was
completed for all significant results to assess differences between each pair of institutions.
To decrease risk of type-I error, only results with p ≤ 0.017 were considered significant.
This is represented in the Tables 2–6 by annotations.
While there are acknowledged limitations regarding the variation in sampling and data
collection methods across three separate institutional studies, the insights gained from this
preliminary investigation are a significant contribution to our understanding of student
perceptions and experiences of research in different types of HE institutions.
Results
Awareness of research
The respondents were asked about their awareness of a number of different research-related
activities that were being undertaken at their institution. For the most part students who were
in a more research-intensive environment were more likely to be aware of different research
activities; however, even those students were surprisingly unaware in some cases (Table 2).
In addition to these general questions, students were also asked about their awareness of
research being conducted by their own instructors. Again, students at the more research-
intensive institutions reported a greater awareness (Table 3).
It is interesting to note in these results that, other than writing for publication, the results
were significantly different between all three institutions with CanRI students having the
greatest awareness overall. This may be due to the fact that undergraduates in Canada would
Table 2. Percentage of students responding “yes” to the question “Are you aware of any of the
following occurring at the University?” by institution.
Total CanRI UKRI UKLRI
Research seminars†‡ 341 232 34 75
(66%) (75%) (77%) (46%)
Books, articles or other research output†‡ 335 213 38 84
(65%) (68%) (86%) (52%)
Notice boards displaying research opportunities 313 183 34 96
(61%) (59%) (77%) (59%)
Research posters/displays† 292 193 28 71
(57%) (63%) (64%) (44%)
Existence of research units*† 259 223 13 23
(50%) (72%) (30%) (14%)
Areas with national/inter-national reputations*†‡ 220 185 14 21

(43%) (60%) (32%) (13%)
Note: Bold values signify a significant difference between the institutions in crosstab analysis; *significant
difference between CanRI and UKRI; †significant difference between CanRI and UKLRI; ‡significant difference
between UKRI and UKLRI.
have four years to be exposed to this activity, while UK undergraduates have only three, or
it may be because there is more of this activity at CanRI and therefore students are more
likely to encounter it.
Experiences of research
Students were also asked to identify if they had experience of different activities that fell
into the three approaches to integrating teaching and research (learning about others’
research, learning to do research, and learning through the research process) (Table 4). In
this case, there was less difference based on the lines of institutional research intensivity
(only two noted †‡), and there were responses that can be directly tied to national contexts
(*†). For example, students from both UK institutions were far more likely to be undertaking
a dissertation. On the other hand, CanRI, like many North American universities, has a long
tradition of involving students in first-year psychology courses (taken by students across
many disciplines) as subjects of research, which may help explain the significantly higher
Table 3. Percentage of students responding “yes” to the question “Are you aware that staff who
teach you are engaged in any of the following?” by institution.
Writing for publication†‡ 353 242 36 75
(69%) (79%) (82%) (46%)
Supervising research students*†‡ 325 250 27 48
(63%) (81%) (61%) (29%)
Undertaking funded research*†‡ 302 238 22 42
(59%) (77%) (50%) (26%)
Supervising research assistants*†‡ 204 184 11 9
(40%) (60%) (25%) (6%)
Table 4. Percentage of students responding “yes” to the question “Have you gained experience of
any of the following?” by institution.
Staff discuss research†‡ 390 263 37 90
(76%) (85%) (84%) (55%)
Guest lecturer discusses research*† 337 239 26 72
(65%) (78%) (59%) (44%)
Reading research paper by staff†‡ 277 186 28 63
(54%) (60%) (64%) (39%)
Undertaking independent project† 245 132 24 89
(48%) (43%) (55%) (55%)
Undertaking dissertation*† 182 21 34 127
(35%) (7%) (77%) (78%)
Being subject of research*† 167 147 6 14

(32%) (47%) (14%) (9%)
Development of research techniques 139 84 14 41
(27%) (27%) (32%) (25%)
Attending research seminar† 122 83 12 27
(24%) (27%) (27%) (17%)
Involved in practical activities/fieldwork 124 71 11 42
(24%) (23%) (25%) (26%)
Contributing to research report or other output† 65 53 3 9
(13%) (17%) (7%) (6%)
Acting as research assistant*† 54 52 0 2
(11%) (17%) (0%) (1%)
number of students at CanRI who responded that they had experienced that activity. As well,
while the number of students who experienced them remains small, the significant differ-
ence in students at CanRI acting as a research assistant can be tied to the North American
tradition of hiring undergraduate students to work on research with an academic staff
member, particularly over the summer months.
Worryingly, only a quarter to a third of students at all three institutions reported that they
had experienced the development of research techniques, although many more will have
taken courses in research methods. There was no significant difference in the reporting of
this experience between the three universities.
Perceptions of the positive and negative impacts of research

Students were asked to identify the positive impacts staff involvement in research had on
their learning environment (Table 5). A quarter to a half of students in the three universities
perceived some positive impacts of research on their learning environment, with a tendency
for a higher number of students in the more research-intensive institutions to report these
benefits. Interestingly, increased awareness of methodological issues and the development
of research skills were not significantly different between institutions. A smaller percentage
of students identified negative impacts of research on their learning, overall, between 16 and
24% reported disadvantages. Students at the more research-intensive institutions were
generally more likely to report negative impacts on their learning environment (Table 6).
Table 5. Percentage of students indicating the following positive impacts of staff who teach them
being involved in research.
Institution Total CanRI UKRI UKLRI
Increased understanding†‡ 275 172 33 70
(53%) (56%) (75%) (43%)
Stimulated interest and enthusiasm*†‡ 241 154 33 54
(47%) (50%) (75%) (33%)
Increased awareness of methodological issues 193 124 18 51
(38%) (40%) (41%) (31%)
Development of research skills 145 91 12 42
(28%) (30%) (27%) (26%)
Motivated me to pursue postgraduate study†‡ 130 106 15 9
(25%) (34%) (34%) (6%)
Students were also asked to rate their perception of statements related to their aware-
ness and experience of research on a scale of “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. A
large proportion of students across all three institutions agreed or strongly agreed that they
learn best when undertaking their own research project or paper (52% CanRI, 53% UKRI
and 46% UKLRI) with no significant difference in student response between the three
institutions.
Qualitative responses
As noted earlier, the questionnaire included an opportunity for students to write about
their positive and negative experiences of staff research. All three institutions had several
qualitative examples of how research positively and negatively impacted the undergradu-
ate student learning environment. A sample of views follows to illustrate the range of
responses.
Table 6. Percentage of students indicating the following negative impacts of staff who teach them
being involved in research.
Institution Total CanRI UKRI UKLRI
Lack of interest in teaching and facilitating my learning† 121 103 7 11
(24%) (33%) (16%) (7%)
Lack of availability 97 65 10 22
(19%) (21%) (23%) (14%)
Inability of Staff to explain material*† 90 75 1 14
(18%) (24%) (2%) (9%)
Lack of interest in my academic welfare† 80 71 5 4
(16%) (23%) (11%) (3%)
Research interests distorting what they teach†‡ 80 70 6 4
(16%) (23%) (14%) (3%)
Some students in all three institutions identified issues that reinforce the literature and
quantitative findings about the importance of integrating teaching and research:
Helped me to understand that … there’s so much more out there that is left to be learned about.
(CanRI Student)
[research] would make your lecturers far more enthusiastic about what they’re doing…they can
bring their own examples rather than making dry lectures [based on] what such-and-such said
in 1989. (UKLRI Student)
I feel it is the way in which you are taught which improves the most. The idea of learning
together. (UKRI Student)
There were also several examples in all three institutions of negative consequences of staff
involvement in research:
…it is also the case that these [research focused] members of staff give the impression that you
as students are more of an inconvenience and the impression is given that your welfare is not
their primary concern. (UKRI Student)
The lecturer who you actually need won’t even give you five minutes, and when you do actually
make an appointment with him…he rushes you so much you forget what you want to ask him
in the first place because he’s so scary… (UKLRI Student)
Some professors…are far more interested in their research and are clearly only teaching
because their contract with the University requires them to. This comes through pretty plainly
when it is the case, as the professor is often not prepared for class or interested in whether you
truly understand the material. (CanRI Student)
Summary of results
Five key findings emerge:
(1) Students at the more research-intensive institutions were more aware of research
activity being undertaken by staff who taught them. CanRI and UKRI varied in
regard to which institution had higher levels of awareness of general research. Some
of these differences are due to their specific institutional context (e.g. Research
Centres were a relatively new introduction at UKRI at the time of the study but had
been long established at CanRI). UKLRI was significantly lower on almost all areas
of awareness.
(2) Students reported a varied experience of research across the three approaches (learn-
ing about others’ research, learning to do research, and learning through the research
process). Students from the more research-intensive institutions were significantly
more likely to report learning about their staff members’ research. Students from the
two UK institutions were more likely to report undertaking their own research
(projects or dissertation) which is probably due to varying curriculum designs in the
two systems of HE. Students from CanRI were more likely to report being a subject
in a research study, act as a research assistant and contribute to a report. These
differences are also probably sectoral.
(3) No significant difference existed between the three institutions in the number of
students reporting the development of research skills or an increasing awareness of
methodological issues. In addition, at all three institutions the number who reported
experiencing the development of research skills was less than a third of those
surveyed.
(4) Students at more research-intensive institutions reported significantly more positive
and significantly more negative impacts of research on their learning. Interestingly,
CanRI had the highest proportion of students reporting negative impacts. This may
be due to institutional characteristics such as size, or may be a result of a lack of
externally administered, transparent quality assurance processes in the Canadian HE
system.
(5) A significant proportion of students at all three institutions reported learning best
when involved in their own projects (i.e., the third category of approach to linking
research and teaching – learning through the research process).
Implications for academic development

Implications arise for academic development from each of these key findings as well as
some of the specific variation in questionnaire items seen across the three institutions. The
findings support the contention of Jenkins (2004) that while there is clear evidence that
students value learning in research-based environments, institutions are not necessarily
providing students with appropriate research-based experiences to enhance learning,
despite the research intensivity of the institution. In this study, as in most others in this
area, undergraduates seem to feel excluded from the research community. Similar to the
findings of Robertson and Blackler (2006) in New Zealand, many qualitative comments at
all three institutions indicated that students had a hard time defining research in terms of
their learning experiences. Academic development units have a clear role in influencing
and contributing to the development of institutional strategies that promote discussion
regarding this potential disconnect and facilitating and supporting curriculum development
that encourages undergraduates to be exposed to and participate in the research cultures of
departments. While it could be argued that these findings regarding awareness of research
are not surprising (i.e., students will be less aware in an institution where less research is
occurring) this does not follow through to the varied findings of experience of research
across the three institutions where no clear pattern of difference between research and less
research-intensive institutions emerged. While the strategies employed in making opportu-
nities available to students will vary by institutional context, it is clear that all three
institutions in this study need to improve students’ feeling of inclusion in the research
community.
The perception of students as being excluded from the research community may also be
impacted by the inability of institutions to inform students about the impact research has on
the curriculum and the learning environment. Students agree that teachers actively engaged
in research are generally more enthusiastic about their subject area, yet at the three institu-
tions in this study, only 69% of students were aware that their teachers were engaged in
writing books and articles for publication and only 76% of students said they had experi-
enced staff discussing research in their courses. Perhaps most telling is the fact that only
27% of students in this study felt they had developed research techniques despite the fact
that almost all students, particularly by their final year, would have taken one or more
courses specifically designed to introduce them to research skills and methodologies in
their disciplines. The role of institutional strategies in raising awareness of skill develop-
ment should be considered as one way to address this issue. This could be done within the
graduate attribute frameworks used at institutional and discipline levels in several countries
(Barrie, 2004). In other countries, the development of research skills and an understanding
of the methodological issues within a discipline can be managed through the effective use
of learning outcomes for an individual course and the alignment of these across the
curriculum. Academic developers can play a significant role in working with programme
teams and individual academic staff in identifying appropriate learning outcomes and
encouraging appropriate learning activities and assessment in the classroom. Once the skills
attempting to be developed are established, the provision of opportunities for students to
explore, identify and reflect on those gained through their academic experience should
be provided (e.g. through Personal Development Planning in the UK; Higher Education
Academy, undated). In this investigation it was clear that these strategies need to be
considered at all three institutions, regardless of research intensivity.
In addition, the findings also highlight the importance of opportunities for research-
based learning in the undergraduate curriculum. Academic development units are key in
encouraging and supporting academic staff, through academic development programmes,
influencing institutional strategies, and in exploring and implementing appropriate and
effective pedagogy for integrating research into the classroom. For example, there is clear
evidence of the effectiveness of problem-based and inquiry-based learning with undergrad-
uate students, both of which encourage students to be engaged with learning in a research
mode (Healey, 2005b; Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001). There are many examples of how
institutions and departments are involving their undergraduate students in research (Healey
& Jenkins, 2006; Jenkins, Healey & Zetter, 2007). The two UK institutions in this study,
according to these findings, have made a start on this with independent projects and the final
year dissertation.
One way of reducing the fissure between teaching and research is to support initiatives
which help to integrate these two academic roles. Many academic development units inter-
nationally have expanded their remits to include research development and, in some cases,
management and leadership development. For units whose institutional role has stayed
focused on learning and teaching, supporting integrated initiatives may involve work
across institutional departments. Colbeck (1998) argued that academic staff with
fragmented identities – where teaching and research are maintained as separate activities in
separate silos of their academic identity – are less likely to be able to integrate teaching and
research effectively when compared to those who have a more integrated academic
identity. This has been followed up recently by Blackmore and Blackwell (2006), who
argue that in order to achieve an integrated academic identity, academic development
should be concerned with developing the academic as a whole rather than solely focusing
on teaching and learning. This aligns with the argument of Lucas, Healey, Jenkins & Short
(2008) that we need to explore the socially situated nature of academic experience rooted
within the organisational cultures of institutions, departments and disciplinary fields. One
way for academic developers to begin the transition towards working more holistically with
academic staff and postgraduate students is through theoretical and practical exploration of
the integration of research, teaching and learning.
In addition to classroom learning experiences, academic developers need to work within
institutions to develop strategies that embrace the notion that the undergraduate learning
environment extends beyond the classroom. Regardless of the type of institution, under-
graduate students should be made aware of research through, for example, poster displays
profiling research within the department, or display boards showing the books and articles
of academic staff.
In addition, undergraduate students should be made aware of research-related activities,
such as research seminars by academic staff or visiting scholars, and encouraged to partic-
ipate as part of the academic community. The notion of the learning environment beyond
the classroom could include providing research opportunities for students over the summer
months, whether in the lab, library, or field, or providing research internships with commu-
nity groups, government, or industry. Several national contexts, including Canada and the
USA, have well-developed undergraduate research programmes where increasing numbers
of undergraduate students have an opportunity to work with academic staff members on a
research project that might serve as a model for other institutions or national systems of HE
(Merkel, 2001). In England the Learning Through Enquiry Alliance (www.ltea.ac.uk)
brings together six of the Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, each of which
emphasises learning through students undertaking research and enquiry. There is also a
National Teaching Fellowship Scheme project on “Leading, promoting and supporting
undergraduate research in new universities” (National Teaching Fellowship Scheme,
undated). The role of academic developers is key in influencing institutional strategy that
will establish these types of programmes, and provide the opportunity for all students to
engage in research-related activities.
Conclusion
Through the lens of an international multi-institutional comparison, this study has explored
final-year undergraduate student awareness, experience and perceptions of research. While,
unsurprisingly, students at more research-intensive institutions reported a higher awareness
of research activity in institutions and amongst those who taught them, four less predictable
findings emerged. A clear pattern of research experience failed to emerge based on the
nature of institution and no significant difference in reporting development of research skills
emerged between the institutions. Students from research-intensive institutions reported
significantly more positive and negative impacts of research on their learning. Finally,
students across all three institutions reported learning best through involvement in their own
research projects.
Academic developers have a key role to play in the effective integration of research,
teaching and learning. Among the areas they can promote are: the use of institutional
strategies to address the disconnect perceived by students between institutional research
and their learning environment; the effective communication with students of the role of
research in their learning; developing an integrated academic identity for staff involved in
teaching; and provision of support and opportunity for the implementation of effective
pedagogy and course design for research-based teaching and learning.
This investigation was a preliminary look at differing student perceptions, awareness
and experience in three different institutional contexts. There are some differences noted as
resulting from distinctions between the Canadian and UK HE sectors and some that may be
attributable to varying levels of research intensivity. Similar studies that are designed across
varying institutional contexts can shed further light on this under-investigated area and
explore in greater depth the reasons for some of the similarities and differences found here.
Several HE institutions in Australasia, Europe and North America have adopted the
questionnaire used in this study. Monitoring changes in student awareness, experience and
perception of research can provide an evaluation of the success of policies to include
students in what Brew (2003) calls “academic communities of practice” (p. 12).
Notes on contributors
Nancy Turner is Director of Professional Development at the University of the Arts London, UK
with responsibility for leading initial and continuing professional development in learning, teaching
and learning technology at UAL. Her research interests include the conceptualisation of research-
based teaching and barriers and enablers in integrating research and teaching at the individual and
institutional level.
Brad Wuetherick is Manager of Student Services, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental
Sciences at the University of Alberta, Canada. His current research interests focus primarily on the
integration of research, teaching and learning, including the impact of research-based teaching and
learning on the undergraduate and graduate student learning environment and the perceptions and
experiences of the teaching-research nexus among academic staff.
Mick Healey is Director of the Centre for Active Learning at the University of Gloucestershire, UK.
His research interests focus on the linkage between research and teaching, the scholarship of teaching
and learning, active learning and the learning experiences of disabled students in HE.
References
Barrie, S. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Educa-
tion Research and Development, 23(3), 261–275.
Blackmore, P., & Blackwell, R. (2006). Strategic leadership in academic development. Studies in
Higher Education, 31(3), 373–387.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based
teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1),
3–18.
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Colbeck, C.L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(6),
647–671.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H.W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.
Healey, M. (2005a). Linking research and teaching: disciplinary spaces. In R. Barnett (Ed.),
Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching
(pp. 30–42). Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Healey, M. (2005b). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 29(2), 183–201.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2006). Strengthening the teaching-research linkage in undergraduate
courses and programmes. In C. Kreber (Ed.), Exploring research-based teaching (pp. 45–55).
New Directions in Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass/Wiley.
Healey, M., Jordan, F., Pell, B., & Short, C. (2008). The research-teaching nexus: Student
experiences of research and consultancy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Higher Education Academy. (undated). Personal development planning. Retrieved July 6, 2008,
from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/pdp.
Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2001). Teaching the art of inquiry. Halifax, Canada: Society of Teach-
ing and Learning in Higher Education.
Jenkins, A. (2004). A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relationships. York, UK:
Higher Education Academy. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from: www.heacademy.ac.uk/embedded_
object.asp?id=21570&file.
Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R., & Paton-Saltzberg, R. (1998). Teaching and research:
Student perspectives and policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 127–141.
Jenkins, A., Breen, R., & Lindsay, R., with Brew, A. (2003). Re-shaping higher education: Linking
teaching and research. London: Routledge/SEDA.
Jenkins, A., Healey, M., & Zetter, R. (2007). Linking research and teaching in disciplines and
departments. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Lucas, L., Healey, M., Jenkins, A., & Short, C. (2008). Academics’ experiences and perceptions of
“research” and “teaching”: Developing the relationship between these activities to enhance
student learning within different disciplines and institutions. Report to Higher Education
Academy. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Merkel, C. (2001). Undergraduate research at six research universities. Washington, DC: Associa-
tion of American Universities.
National Teaching Fellowship Scheme. (undated). Leading, promoting and supporting undergradu-
ate research in the new university sector. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from: http://www.glos.ac.uk/
tli/prsi/current/ugresearch/index.cfm.
Neumann, R. (1994). The teaching-research nexus: Applying a framework to university students’
learning experiences. European Journal of Education, 29(2), 323–339.
Robertson, J., & Blackler, G. (2006). Students’ experiences of learning in a research environment.
Higher Education Research and Development, 25(3), 215–229.
Robertson, J., & Bond, C. (2001). Experiences of the relation between teaching and research: What
do academics value? Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 5–19.
Zamorski, B. (2002). Research-led teaching and learning in higher education: A case. Teaching in
Higher Education, 7(4), 411–427.

International Journal For Academic Development: Based Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal For Academic Development: Based Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]

On: 25 October 2012, At: 18:41

International Journal for Academic

Version of record first published: 05 Sep 2008.

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440802242333

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

International perspectives on student awareness, experiences and

(Received 15 January 2008; final version received 19 May 2008)

Cet article explore les implications, pour le développement pédagogique, de l’intégration

*Corresponding author. Email: nancy.turner@arts.ac.uk

ISSN 1360-144X print/ISSN 1470-1324 online

the first three ways.

Context for the study

consequence, many countries are developing increasingly differentiated systems of HE in

from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). In addition to the quantitative questions,

Areas with national/inter-national reputations*†‡ 220 185 14 21

Being subject of research*† 167 147 6 14

Perceptions of the positive and negative impacts of research

Implications for academic development

You might also like