Skip to main content

The teaching-only stream

Are we headed up a creek without a paddle?

by Adam Chapnick


In the end, it all comes down to what students are actually learning.

A debate is under way in Ontario and across Canada, on the pages of this magazine and elsewhere, over the future of postsecondary education. More specifically, how can governments best meet the need to produce well-educated, global citizens in an age of significant budgetary constraint? Or, better, what methods, means and strategies will enable students to learn more yet, at the same time, cost the system less in the years to come?

Three highly regarded figures in the Canadian higher education community, Ian Clark, David Trick and Richard Van Loon, have answered this question by calling for a dramatic increase in the number of tenured university professors whose primary, if not exclusive, duty is to teach undergraduates. More emphasis on teaching, it follows, will result in greater student learning.

Writing about the Ontario postsecondary system in particular, they claim that the “research university model” is an unsustainably high-cost construct and that it is poorly designed to meet the needs of the next generation of students. Their book, Academic Reform (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011), maintains that by releasing a significant number of professors from their research obligations, governments could not only refocus on students but also make the postsecondary system cost-effective.

Clearly, not everyone agrees. To date, most prominent among the critics’ concerns has been the willingness of the authors to separate a university’s research mission from its teaching function.

“Universities teach in a scholarly environment that is informed, stimulated, and enriched by research,” wrote Carleton University’s provost and vice-president academic, Peter Ricketts, in an opinion piece in this magazine. In the Canadian Historical Association’s newsletter, The Bulletin, Professor Craig Heron said: “The symbiosis between teaching and research is essential and would be seriously threatened by a teaching stream.”

Such assertions are so common – one 1992 study suggested that 90 percent of professors believed them – that they have largely evaded the critical scrutiny that scholars insist on in their own disciplines. In other words, a community that typically rejects unsubstantiated assertions has, in this case, seemingly grown comfortable making two of its own: first, that teaching and research cannot be disengaged without compromising the integrity of the university system; and second, by implication, that students will learn more from faculty who are active researchers.
The data available should make most analysts reconsider assertion number one, but it is the lack of evidence about assertion two that in the end is most troubling.

Herbert Marsh, a professor of educational psychology now at the University of Oxford, and John Hattie, a professor of education now at the University of Melbourne, analyzed close to 60 studies on the relationship between teaching and research at the postsecondary level in a 1996 article for the Review of Educational Research. They write: “Good researchers are neither more nor less likely to be effective teachers than are poor researchers.” Or, as they put it even more bluntly in the Journal of Higher Education in 2002, “it is just not defensible to claim that only good researchers are the most effective teachers, or that good teaching follows from more research.”

Their work is fascinating. But since it is focused on teaching, rather than student learning, it might not tell the whole story, and that’s why proponents of teaching-centred universities should wait before calling for firmer divisions between the research and teaching mandates of Canadian postsecondary institutions.

Professors Marsh and Hattie’s meta-analysis identifies a series of hypotheses that have sought to test the relationship between research and teaching effectiveness at the university level. The authors conclude that while each hypothesis has its proponents in the literature, only one can be sustained after being subjected to scholarly rigour.

Investigators have not been able to prove that the more time professors dedicate to research, the less effectively they teach, or vice versa. Nor have they been able to demonstrate that the qualities that make a good researcher mitigate good teaching, or vice versa. Nor does the evidence suggest that being a successful researcher or teacher requires trade-offs that inevitably compromise effectiveness in the other area.

So, good research doesn’t seem to have to come at the price of good teaching, nor does effective teaching necessarily detract from the production of quality publications.

What about the opposite? Claims that effective teachers must have active research agendas have also been rejected in scientific studies. Nor is there any convincing evidence to substantiate the claim that the personal and professional attributes that contribute to research effectiveness and teaching effectiveness are shared. (There is a similar lack of evidence to support the theory that researchers and teachers are necessarily different types of people.)

Today, then, there aren’t any convincing studies to substantiate the long-held professional belief that research and teaching at the postsecondary level cannot, or should not, be separated.
Indeed, to date, only one hypothesis, what Professors Marsh and Hattie call “the different enterprises model,” seems to have been validated scientifically. It contends that academic research and university-level teaching are so distinct that one cannot expect to find correlations in a professor’s performance in the two domains.

Taken at face value, then, one of the fundamental premises underlying the call for teaching-centric universities – that it is possible for professors to teach effectively without engaging in original research in their areas of expertise – might indeed be credible. But there are methodological and strategic flaws with such a conclusion.

Historically, examinations of the relationship between good research and good teaching have involved subjects who were expertly trained in one domain – research – and often not at all trained in the other. Moreover, even if studies had tried to focus on professors who had equivalent expertise in both domains, they would have been hard-pressed to find enough of them to sample given the paucity of pedagogical training universities have typically required of their faculty.

The closest body of evidence available that considers more equitably the links between research and teaching can be found in studies of the importance of subject matter expertise at the primary and secondary school levels, where virtually all teachers have undergone formal pedagogical training.

Deborah Ball’s work in mathematics, for example, demonstrates convincingly that teachers who have greater mathematical knowledge (a specific, deep understanding of math that Dr. Ball, a professor of education and chair of the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness, describes in detail) create more productive learning environments for their students.

Because an increasing number of postgraduate programs have begun to provide students with pedagogical training and teaching experience, there is also a slowly emerging literature exploring the inverse relationship. A recent article in Science magazine noted that graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics who taught in lab settings during their coursework emerged at the end of the year with significantly stronger essential research skills than those who did not teach.

So, there is reason to speculate that the links between research and teaching at the university level might be closer than Hattie and Marsh’s work has suggested. Nonetheless, even if these studies are replicated with faculty as subjects and result in similar findings, by focusing so intently on teaching, an input, and not student learning, the desired strategic outcome, policymakers would be missing the point.

Marsh and Hattie’s primary tool to evaluate effective teaching is course evaluations. And while such surveys are helpful, they are insufficient if the goal is to determine what students have actually learned.

As Susan Ambrose and her colleagues have explained in the excellent and accessible How Learning Works, learning – or what some now call deep learning – is a process, not a product. It involves a significant change in the learner’s knowledge, beliefs, behaviour or attitude. Some of these changes are difficult to appreciate immediately, and likely they are impossible to observe in students in the weeks preceding the end of a course (when course evaluations typically take place).

To identify the relationship between faculty members with active research agendas and student learning in their courses, researchers might want to consider students’ academic performance well after the fact: it might be worth asking whether the ideas and concepts they were supposed to have learned affect how students solved problems in subsequent courses in subsequent years. Researchers might want to conduct effective pre- and post-testing on fundamental concepts and ideas. They might want to use other measures that have yet to be fully developed.
Right now, policymakers know so little about how much students are really learning in university classrooms that it seems too soon to render a verdict on the ultimate merits of teaching-stream positions or institutions.

So, let’s still have that debate about how to support and educate society’s future leaders, but let’s first gather the data to make it worthwhile. Discovering more about what and how students are actually learning is in everyone’s best interest.

Adam Chapnick is deputy director of education at the Canadian Forces College and associate professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada.

Print Comments (14) Post a comment
Email Reprint Share Share

Comments on this Article

Universities do not care about teaching, and the majority of professors don't care either. This was covered very well in a book (about 10 years ago) entitled No Place to Learn (UBC Press). Research and grants gets one promoted. Being an effective teacher does nothing.
There is ample room for universities to improve teaching, but it would require professors to change their expectations about their jobs. This will not happen until it is forced on them.
The real answer lies in the provinces (and hopefully private money) investing in new post-secondary institutions that provide accredited degrees and certifications, but staffed by faculty that truly value teaching.

Posted by David Calverley, Jan 5, 2013 6:13 PM

The element I see missing from the debate is simply this: many faculty enjoy BOTH teaching and research, and are resistant to any changes to the university model which would force them to choose one, to the exclusion of the other. And, to make matters worse, it seems likely that there would be status and/or remuneration repercussions as a result of choosing the teaching side. No wonder faculty rush to defend the importance of research to their teaching, and teaching to their research, regardless of whether or not studies support this idea.

Posted by Limited Term Prof, Oct 29, 2012 12:51 PM

What a strange discussion this is, setting teaching and research as separate entities that may, or may not, increase students' (deep?) learning. The assumption of the teaching stream proponents seems to be that these are people who will not (or will not have time to) do research. Yet, there is no definition of what constitutes research. A concentrated, focused exploration of a topic? Don't we all do that whether teaching or researching? And the research stream? Would only funded research count? Not all research is fundable - think of the difference between funding in the Sciences, Medicine, Engineering, and the Humanities or, research on teaching. As has been noted, some research does not carry the cachet of 'real' research, even though it may be funded and published. Perhaps another criteria for research would be that it is published? But then we have to ask which publications count as publications? Refereed journals? Community information sheets? Both come from research and who is to say that one advances knowledge more than the other?
What if we turned the discussion on its head and teaching becomes a reward for years of research? We know that research is hard work. Beginning with the hours/weeks/months of writing proposals to the messiness of research, especially in a 'community' setting, to the hours/days/weeks of writing up for publication. Perhaps it would be a relief not to have to do all that - to concentrate on the philosophical questions that research generates.
Finally, whose agenda is driving the question about research and teaching streams? Universities are struggling with debt and chronic underfunding. Right now, part-time and sessional faculty are helping to manage the funding gap - they are cheaper and don't require all those pesky benefits. Should we assume that those in the teaching stream will be paid at the same rate as the research stream? Or that their workloads would be somehow comparable? Working with a petrie dish is certainly less emotionally draining than counseling a teacher candidate through a difficult practicum. How would that difference be remunerated?
All in all, I think this dichotomy is a red herring that isn't resolvable except as an administrative exercise in division. Lets focus on the hard questions.

Posted by Alison Griffith, Oct 12, 2012 11:29 AM

It seems as if most of the commentators believe that a mixture of teaching and research in ones career is likely to result in a better learning experience for students; and I would concur, for many of the reasons already expressed. But I do agree with Adam that critical scrutiny of the issue is often lacking; see more further below.

If the goal is to save money, then undoubtedly a teaching-only institution makes sense. But calling such an institution a “university” will not make it so and will not be enough to draw in students who truly want a university education. The Clark, Trick and Van Loon proposition is basically a non-solution to the problem.

Most studies that I have read on attempting to demonstrate, or refute, a connection between research and teaching have the following major flaw: They tend to plot teaching effectiveness (whatever that means and by whatever measure) as a function of research intensity (number of publications, or amount of research dollars or some such quantitative measure). In those articles that I’ve read, none of the studies included a group of scholars who had no research program, and so they all miss the most crucial point. There is every reason to imagine why teaching effectiveness may well decline at very high levels of research intensity: it’s called lack of time! It’s not the intensity of research that’s important, but only the fact that one is engaged in serious research at some level. Although I tend to believe in that proposition, it is only a conjecture, and Adam is correct that the proposition should be scrutinized carefully. If only someone would conduct such a study and finally lay the matter to rest, one way or the other!

Posted by Reuben Kaufman, Oct 12, 2012 12:28 AM

I recently attended a few tenure-track faculty interviews and during the interview process I tried to highlight my publications on the scholarship of teaching and learning innovation on the top of my core research focus. It was surprising to get an impression that they appear to ignore the research on teaching and learning innovation, and went on to say that my research lacked a focus. To make it more general, they completely ignored teaching needs in the hiring process, which I would consider a gross neglect our students who pay a heavy tuition fee.

My point here is that we have to give emphasis on not only teaching and research but also community engagement. Separating teaching and research into two separate streams not only ignores our students' rights to learn from best researchers but also ignores the growing need of community engaged scholarship of teaching, research and community service.

Posted by Noname brand, Oct 11, 2012 4:59 PM

Interesting discussion. I have a few things to add to the discussion:

1.There is a role for teaching-only faculty. For example, I can think of social science statistics, introductory level courses which survey the entire field, some professional program courses which are required for later certification etc. While these courses evolve and change through research advances, it doesn't mean the instructor has to be the one to do that research, in fact no one researcher could. There is a role for teaching-only faculty to do that work. Survey courses can be the most challenging due to high enrollment and a diverse range of students from multiple disciplines and I wager that having excellent pedagogical skills would outweigh research experience in those environments. Professionals already teach courses on a stipend basis in professional programs because their experience is valued, not their research.

2. There is a large cohort of contract and contingent workers who are already teaching without doing research (or at least not doing research with the support of their university). Do their teaching outcomes compare with permanent faculty? It would be an interesting comparison group. I understand their engagement as teachers may differ because of their working conditions, but it could provide some more evidence on the issue. I would rather have a stream of permanent faculty with teaching duties over the current move towards stipend based instruction. I think students would too.

3. Could teaching faculty do some research to stay current in their field and in pedagogy? Their workload split might be different than traditional research faculty, but that doesn't mean there isn't space for some research time. If it's in the service of those introductory and professional courses it would certainly add to the learning experience of students. I don't think it has to be all or nothing.

Posted by Stephannie, Oct 11, 2012 2:24 PM

There is a great difference between instruction and teaching, the latter implying education of the whole person, irrespective of the subject we are engaged in with our students.
Instruction, no matter how scholarly the content, often proves educationally destructive - lack of understanding in depth, fear of failure which is part of true learning, psychological problems that result.

Those of us engaged directly in the aspect of youth education must never cease studying and this is what is required as distinct from research which is a narrower aspect pedagogically.
We need to impart to our students an enthusiasm for learning (not necessarily achieved by "one-lump concentrated research), fearlessness in the face of failure - Einstein, among many famous mathematicians and scientists, is a good example.

In summary, the professor is a lifelong learner. It is a matter of keeping up with new ideas and findings on a regular basis and being constructively critical, an attitude imparted to our students. Maybe a good example would be a medical doctor: it is essential for him or her to keep abreast of all new discoveries and to be scholarly critical of each.

Posted by Theresa Camilleri, Oct 11, 2012 1:30 PM

This comes down to a simple distinction. To use SSHRCish language, do we want our university professors to be "knowledge producers" or mere "knowledge distributors?" If professors' primary public task is simply to regurgitate (albeit effectively) knowledge that already exists, then a teaching-only stream makes good sense. If, however, we are meant to participate in a broader cultural process, one in which we help shape discourse, formulate new questions, and derive new solutions, then research is key. As Jeff Noonan correctly points out, it is this ongoing production process that defines our profession, but also our status and purpose in society at large.

Finally, as an historian of medieval institutions, I cannot but remind that this distinction was sorted out during the origins of western universities. The purpose of the MA was to teach. The purpose of the PhD was to develop ideas and, thus, guide teachers in what and how they should teach. If we adopt a teaching-only stream, what justification is there for those individuals to hold PhDs? Would a good MA not suffice? It seems to me that if we reconsider the teaching/research requirement for professors, then we must also reconsider the required qualifications.

Posted by Steven Bednarski, Oct 11, 2012 4:54 AM

One thing seems to be missing from the discussions I have read: the availability of research labs in which undergraduate students can get valuable experience. In my department (Psychology, McGill), where almost all the professors are working on funded research, somewhere between 50 and 100 undergraduates participate annually in the work of professors' labs, either for course credit, or as paid or voluntary assistants. They learn that the research reported in books and articles is a prettied up and smoothed out picture of what actually happens in real research. Real research involves obstacles, variables that are difficult to control, and quite often, failure. This experience is something that students can't get in the classroom, or from reading the literature on a subject (only the successes are reported and in an idealized form, omitting all the false starts). Separating researchers from teachers would make such experiences unavailable to students. Because almost all my colleagues have active research projects and are also teachers, they can offer students the opportunity of learning though doing. Sure, you can make up canned research exercises to teach students about research methods, but the students in our department's labs know that the research they are involved with is REAL, is intended for publication, faces scrutiny from ethics boards, and logical criticism from other researchers. Many undergraduates are listed as co-authors in subsequent publications -- a nice item for their CVs. It's true that only a minority of students avail themselves of these opportunities, but this minority is a very important one for Canadian society.

Posted by Albert S. Bregman, Oct 11, 2012 1:06 AM

One thing missing from this discussion is time. If we think about the economy of time, hours spent teaching are not available for research, and hours spent writing papers, applying for grants etc are clearly not available for thinking about and improving one's teaching.

I think I am a pretty good teacher, but I know that I would be a better teacher and woudl be teaching more to the "state of the art" of pedagogy if I could liberate some time from research. Anath Tikkum is right when he says teaching professors would not get the same respect as research centred colleagues. But that is as much the fault of our institutions, which reward research achievment, and offer - at best - lukewarm support to great teachers. So the answer, clearly, is that our institutions have to finally wake up and reward teaching for the noble and difficult enterprise that it is.

I am an active researcher, and I can say that my teaching has definitely informed my research, but I am not sure I could say tha tmy research has benefitted my teaching. I absolutely reject the notion that a PhD trained professor with no current research can not keep abreast of the latest developments. I read tons of papers outside of my own field in the interests of keeping abreast of disciplines that I have to teach but which are not my major research area. Anyone who has been trainedin research ought to be able to do the same.

When I see the challenges faced by this generationof undergraduates, I am convinced that univerities need great teachers more than ever, and some of those teachers should be as unencumbered by the chores of publishing, grant writing, graduate student supervision etc as possible.

Posted by Andrew Park, Oct 10, 2012 10:40 PM

University teaching is not just about interaction with students in lectures and undergraduate laboratories, it is about curriculum development, improvement of the learning environment (by obtaining funds for the latest equipment – in Science, for example), involving undergraduate students in research projects, and through such involvement, planting seeds of enthusiasm amongst a few undergraduate students which will spread and encourage more undergraduate students to become active learners. If there is no research environment, it is difficult to see how life-changing enthusiasm to learn about the latest developments in the subject, and to deeply understand difficult theory, can be encouraged. My love of Physics (as an undergraduate student at London) and my love of Medical Physics and Computer Science (as a graduate student at Aberdeen and Strathclyde) grew from my involvement with “nutty” professors – brilliant researchers who were kind enough to allow me to work in their world for a little while.

Posted by Richard Frost, Oct 10, 2012 8:50 PM

I agree with the previous post. The discussion does not address the real issues regarding the relationship between teaching and research.

1. From my own experience I can see that my teaching has tremendously shaped by research agenda in the sense that it has allowed me to see my topic in the larger discussion. Teaching has therefore made me a better researcher. In turn, my research informs my teaching and I can give better examples and case studies in the class from my research and students are much better able to see that this is an ongoing inquiry. I also do not see how one can stay up to date in a field if one does not have the opportunity to do research and attend conferences. In my field, most of the knowledge I was taught at graduate school was outdated by the time I started teaching and it required my active research agenda to have an incentive to stay on top of the developments in my area.

2. The discussion neglects that the teaching stream professors would simply not be taken seriously by their peers, would have no real motivation to stay on top of their field as it is not expected from them. It seems the only reason for the teaching stream discussion is that it allows to save money, as I can see from my own example.

As a CLA of several years, the university has given me several 10 months contracts (many thanks to the tax payers for funding my summer unemployment at 50% reduced pay and inability to do research outside the country), and has given me a lower professional development fund. It is about saving money so that more money can go to more administrators in the university. None of this will really improve teaching but simply allow the universities to increase the salaries for the vice presidents.

The only way out of this impasse is to develop a serious consideration of professional development for the teaching stream - which then would probably end up again as a form of "academisation" of the teaching stream - which brings us back to the beginning.

The real problem is the increase in inequality in our world and the decreasing willingness of the very rich in a society to contribute to the society. What is needed are increased taxes to fund public institutions with equal employment opportunities to hold societies together in a world characterized by tremendous changes due to technological change and globalization.

Posted by Anath Tikkum, Oct 10, 2012 2:20 PM

Jeff Noonan, your comment seems to lead to the conclusion that the students, not just teachers should be involved in active inquiry (research) in order to learn more deeply. An experienced researcher can best teach research theory and practice, but the teacher does not have to be actively or concurrently engaged in research in order to teach it well.

Posted by Tania Smith, Oct 10, 2012 2:07 PM

It is certainly true that claims about the relationship between teaching and research need to be critically scrutinized, as the article contends. However, I think the most important dimension of the relationship between teaching and reaearch, and the reason why I would argue that they not be further institutionally separated, is never really addressed. The main issue to my mind is not whether in particular individual cases being a productive scholar makes one a good teacher (or whether there is no or even a negative correlation). Rather, I think the heart of the matter is the nature of university teaching. Teaching is never the mere transmission of facts, but this truth is especially important at the post-secondary level. Whether any particular scholar is also a great teacher is besides the point. That which students need to learn most of all at the postsecondary level is not the history and state of the art of the discipline as given facts, but what it means to be engaged in the on-going process of engendering the knowledge that constitutes the discipline. Unless one is engaged in research, I do not see how this most essentialo goal of university teaching can be effectively accomplished.

Posted by Jeff Noonan, Oct 10, 2012 1:06 PM

Post a comment

University Affairs moderates all comments according to the following guidelines. If approved, comments generally appear within one business day. We may republish particularly insightful remarks in our print edition or elsewhere.