Cultivating student expectations of a research-informed curriculum

Developing and promoting pedagogic resonance in the undergraduate student learning pathway

Corony Edwards and Mike McLinden, with Sarah Cooper, Helen Hewertson, Emma Kelly, David Sands and Alison Stokes

Introduction

While the integration of research and teaching can provide valuable ways of enhancing a student learning experience, establishing such links can be complex and challenging given different practices and levels of understanding of `research-based education' and `research-informed teaching' within and between disciplines. Further, it is increasingly recognised that effective integration does not happen automatically and requires proactive steps on the part of tutors (McLinden et al. 2015). In this chapter, we examine the nature of the challenges and deliberate steps that can be taken to cultivate a rich variety of research-teaching links from the earliest stages in the student learning pathway. We see this as being the key means to ensuring there is `pedagogic resonance' (e.g. Polias 2010) between the perspectives that inform the course design (learning design), the learning activities the students will engage in (learning experience) and the practices and traditions of the discipline into which the students are being inducted (learning discipline). Drawing on relevant literature, we provide an overview of the types of research-informed teaching that undergraduate students may experience at a university. We outline how a framework of research-informed teaching descriptors could be used as tools to inform the curriculum design process and to support student induction and transitions. We then draw on invited case studies to illustrate ways in which research-informed teaching can foster student engagement, so that students learn their discipline through a curriculum that has pedagogic resonance. Each case study illustrates how practitioners have designed their curricula to ensure students become increasingly active and self-directed participants in the process of acting and `thinking as' a researcher in their discipline from an early stage in their learning pathway. We conclude by summarising the key challenges, and offer some approaches to achieving more active student engagement in a `Connected Curriculum' (Fung and Carnell 2017; Fung 2017) that is both research-informed and pedagogically resonant.

Research and teaching links in higher education

Over the last two decades there has been extensive exploration of the links between teaching and research in higher education. Key contributors include, among others, Neumann (1994), Boyer (1998), Brew (2003; 2006; 2010), Griffiths (2004), Jenkins and Healey (2005), Robertson (2007), Spronken-Smith and Walker (2010), Land and Gordon (2015), and more recently, the UK government, who in their white paper on teaching excellence in higher education acknowledge that, `For too long, teaching has been the poor cousin of research. Skewed incentives have led to a progressive decline in the relative status of teaching as an activity' (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2016: 12). As reported by Cleaver, Lintern and McLinden (2014), a frequently cited example is the typology developed by Griffiths (2004), subsequently presented by Jenkins and Healey (2005) as four distinct approaches linking teaching and research, namely teaching that it is `research-led'; `research-oriented'; `research-based' and `research-tutored' (see the introduction to this collection for definitions of these terms).

Jenkins and Healey (2005) report that learning and teaching activities frequently involve a mixture of these four approaches, with the particular blend dependent on the context in which an activity is structured. Embedding research-informed teaching into the curriculum is not considered to be straightforward, however. The `nexus' between research and teaching is complex and influenced by a wide range of factors, such as departmental structural arrangements for organising research and teaching activities, and a potential gap in making connections between staff research outputs and students' learning when this research is too far ahead of the undergraduate curriculum to be accessible to students (e.g. Jenkins 2004). Jenkins (2004) argues that students tend to vary in their attitudes towards research depending on their academic orientation to their studies, noting that disciplinary variations occur, with teaching – research relations shaped by how disciplinary communities conceive the nature of knowledge, research and teaching, the forms of pedagogy and curricula in different disciplines and, for some, the impact of professional organisations and student interests on the content and practices of the disciplines. This view is supported by the findings of an institutional survey conducted among academic staff and students at a research-intensive institution in the UK, which investigated how research-informed teaching is understood and practised across different disciplines in the university (McLinden et al. 2015). The survey employed an amalgamation of the Griffiths (2004) and Healey (2005) categories in asking respondents to select the type of `research-informed' teaching they used in relation to five broad headings (Figure 1.1):

1. Research-led (RL): Students learning `about' the research of others.

2. Research-oriented (RO): Students learning about research processes.

3. Research-based (RB): Students learning as researchers.

4. Research-tutored (RT): Students critiquing others' research.

5. Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): Enquiring and reflecting on teaching and learning.

Case studies of research-informed teaching

In April 2016, we distributed a call via our professional networks for volunteers to act as case study leads for four disciplines (Humanities, applied Social Sciences, a `pure' Science and an applied Science). Leads were recruited for Humanities, Law, Criminology, Physics and Earth Sciences. A template was provided for the leads to capture examples of research-informed approaches to teaching and learning (`RIT') in their respective disciplines. Interviews were conducted with the leads through Skype to identify defining characteristics and research practices for each discipline. The call resulted in 25 contributions. Given space limitations, we present here one example to illustrate research-informed programme design beyond the level of the single module, with connected, staged and planned inclusion of research-informed teaching throughout the programme. In the penultimate section below we draw on this and four further examples to show how pedagogic resonance can be achieved through alignment of the learning `discipline', `design' and `experience'.

Table 1.1 shows how the five variants of research-informed teaching are embedded in a BA English programme at De Montfort University with combinations of two or more of the variants often used, and explicit links apparent between modules within and across years of study.

Although details of the programme-specific manifestations of research-informed teaching were not collected in the McLinden et al. study (2015), the survey revealed different practices and levels of understanding among students and staff as to the nature of research-informed teaching both generically and within different disciplines. A key conclusion of the project was that, however well justified the claims to be offering `research-informed' teaching, there is a risk of disappointing the expectations of the students if staff are unable to explain when and why they are being taught through a range of `research-informed' approaches, appropriate to their disciplines, since it cannot be assumed that without such explanation, students will recognise research-informed teaching when they experience it. This observation is reflected in Brew's (2010: 44 – 5) report of research at Monash University, Australia, where she cites `evidence that many of the University's initiatives in research-led teaching were initially teacher centred [and there was] ... realization that the concept ... was by no means clear, and developing understanding needed to be worked on continually'. In spite of this, Brew also reports that `there was growing evidence that these activities resulted in improvements in students' awareness of research in the university'. McLinden et al. (2015) recommend developing resources to promote greater awareness of research-informed teaching approaches supported with examples of good practice for staff and students, and ensuring students are made aware of the different types of research-informed teaching and associated skills they will experience, with reminders of this throughout their programme of study. We consider next how, from a student perspective, the different types of research-informed teaching approaches can be conceptualised, and expectations and understandings suitably cultivated.

Cultivating student expectations of research-informed teaching

As noted above, research-informed teaching can be conceptualised in various ways leading to differences in understanding, expectations and experiences. In Figure 1.2, we present an overview of the types of research-informed teaching approaches that undergraduate students may experience during their studies, but described from a student's perspective.

The figure is offered as a tool for use with students, to highlight the characteristics of the different approaches. We suggest that this generic model may serve as a resource to draw on, first as a prompt for programme and module leads when considering the range of learning activity designs they will include in their courses, and secondly, if augmented with discipline-specific examples, as an aid to student induction and transition. Talking through this model with newly arrived students could assist with explaining the pedagogy they will encounter, making explicit how research is embedded into their programme as part of the learning design, thus helping to cultivate expectations from the outset.

Attention to the process by which students gain knowledge and understanding of their discipline requires particular consideration, since it is through engagement in discipline-appropriate learning activities that the learning experience becomes `pedagogically resonant'. While traditional, transmission-based lectures may form a part of this process (akin to conference presentations for staff, for example), they could offer an impoverished `learning diet' unless balanced with other ways of engaging with research.

In our discussion thus far, we have moved from generic conceptions of the different expressions of the research-teaching nexus towards a practical consideration of how these might be experienced by an undergraduate student during a programme of study. In relating this experience to the notion of `pedagogic resonance', we propose that by making the learning design explicit, we can cultivate appropriate expectations of students' research-informed learning experience. We have also suggested that programme and module leads can draw on the research-informed teaching frameworks to inspire a more connected, research-informed curriculum design. We have made limited reference thus far, however, to disciplinary considerations which we argue are an integral component of a curriculum that has pedagogic resonance. With reference to our case studies, we consider next some of the particular disciplinary orientations and traditions that shape the precise nature of the pedagogically resonant learning design and experience at programme level.

Pedagogic resonance and disciplinary considerations

In this section, we draw on the notion of `pedagogic resonance' to elucidate the alignment between curriculum elements and how these are experienced by students within their chosen discipline. The term `pedagogic resonance' has been variously defined. As examples, Trigwell and Shale (2004: 529) discuss `the bridge between teacher knowledge and student learning', while Polias (2010: 42) uses the term to describe how teaching approaches and resources can `work in unison so they do not confuse the student but instead make the learning pathway more effective and efficient'. If we want students to fulfil their academic potential, this is a highly desirable condition for maximising learning, to which we should aspire. Our interpretation of the term in relation to the `Connected Curriculum' (Fung and Carnell 2017), is from the student perspective, in seeking to ensure resonance between three components: the learning design (aspects of course design, including intended learning outcomes, selection and sequencing of subject content, time allocation, resources, teaching modes, assessment design and criteria, etc.), the student's learning experience (the learning and assessment activities students actually engage in, including interactions with tutors and other learners, and the cognitive processes these engender) and the practices and traditions of the learning discipline into which the students are being inducted, including research traditions and practices, values and ethics, and underlying epistemologies and ontologies (Figure 1.3).

This notion of resonance builds on, but goes beyond, the concepts of `synchronic coherence' (how the learning on a number of separate, but synchronously taught, modules is experienced) and `sequential coherence' (how the learning of a topic at the beginning of a course relates to the learning of the same topic later in the course) (Wallace 1991:153). It also differs from, but needs to be supported by, the now familiar concept of `constructive alignment' of course design (Biggs 2003), where the intended learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment design must align. In our interpretation, disciplinary cultures, practices, values and traditions can intersect with considerations of both coherence and constructive alignment through the programme-wide adoption of research-informed approaches to teaching and learning.

The deliberate and progressive integration of a range of research-informed approaches into the learning design and activities of all stages of an undergraduate programme of study, as illustrated in the previous section, is, we contend, integral to ensuring that pedagogic resonance is fully achieved and experienced by students, with the learning benefits that it aims to bring. Furthermore, in seeking to promote `pedagogic resonance' between the components outlined in Figure 1.3, we argue it is important to find meaningful ways to make our own thinking as tutors and learning designers explicit to students. The process of explicating our thinking pushes us to clarify and test our own logic, as well as helping learners to engage with activities that they may initially find alien and challenging. This suggests that in terms of suitably cultivating learner expectations, induction into research-informed teaching and learning must be embedded into the earliest stages of the learning pathway, as part of a wider, supported transition process, with opportunities frequently and repeatedly provided throughout the programme to consolidate these ideas and to ensure alignment between learner expectations and their actual experience. We consider next how the components outlined in Figure 1.3 can be drawn upon to examine how research-informed teaching activities are embedded into the case study discipline programmes.

Pedagogic resonance in the Disciplinary case studies

Humanities (English)

Learning discipline. The case study lead described Humanities as a group of disciplines with `fuzzy identity' (Chan 2016: 1657), where the defining characteristics relate to a cluster of intellectual skills. Humanities disciplines, including English, focus on understanding interconnections, seeing the bigger picture, and the realities and the consequences of actions. Reflexivity and awareness of multiple perceptions are threshold concepts. Mixed methods are often used in research, with scholars tending to start with very open questions, seeking to uncover and understand complexity. Critical thinking, ways of being able to explore and come to understand the world are fundamental.