Research Opportunities vs Teaching Load

In the wake of my post yesterday I received a trio of comments that have each added a valuable insight to my present state of thought regarding the root cause of the relatively superficial usage of online learning environments we tend to see in education – or at least higher education.This in turn has evolved into a more fundamental look at teaching practice in general, and now, as pointed out by Ed Webb, a look at what appears to be a deeply rooted cultural and systemic reality with regards to teaching versus research.

Ed highlighted the fact that research output tends to be more highly regarded and valued at universities than teaching. Certainly institutions have a responsibility and moral obligation to look after the students who seek opportunities for learning and guidance – and you’ll never hear a Vice Chancellor come out and say “learning plays second fiddle here” – but looking at the way things actually work in practice, the way resources are allocated, and the weight given to publications versus teaching in career advancement would all suggest that research indeed trumps teaching – from the highest levels of the institution.

So there is little wonder then why, to academics, one activity will tend to be given higher preference than the other.

This reality is perhaps best depicted by the following annecdote:

A number of years ago I was involved in the piloting of Macromedia Breeze, which is the predecessor to Adobe Connect. Due to the relative complexities of the set-up process – particularly when problems arose – I found myself very closely involved with the technical facilitation of the meetings.

While it had initially been intended as a learning medium, in reality the bulk of its usage ultimately came from administrative matters such as job interviews with remote candidates.

In the case of academic appointments I began to notice a recurring theme during the portion of the interview in which candidates were given the opportunity to ask questions.

Without fail each individual would always ask the same thing:

“Can you tell me about the teaching load and research opportunities.”

This is a straightforward question on the surface, and yet if you look at the connotations in the choice of wording – which was virtually identical in each case, regardless of the discipline – you begin to recognise a clearly delineated value system.

Teaching is measured by its “load” and frequently something you would try to buy time off from, while research is recognised in terms of its “opportunities” and is something to be maximised and preserved.

This is not necessarily a universal sentiment of course, and one could easily identify members of faculties who stand out as stellar teachers who thrive in the classroom. Yet the frequency with which the “load” versus “opportunity” question arose – independent of discipline, nationality, age, gender, faculty, or level of experience – points to a fundamental reality in academia which has become embedded in the fabric of the culture and surrounding policies, procedures, structures, and thus classrooms.

The magnitude of the shift that would be required to resolve this discrepancy feels absolutely astronomical. This is all the more reason, I think, to focus on identifying the Change Agents in the schools and faculties and focusing on them for now.

If we can demonstrate that online learning can produce not only nurturing and empowering environments where students thrive and learning increases, but that – if done properly with adequate planning and implementation – it can actually reduce teaching load (and there are examples of this), then perhaps the discussion need not boil down to a decision between either research time or good teaching, but we can in fact have both.

Posted via email from Mike Bogle