Pedagogical research needs clearer standards of excellence

Teaching excellence is a core tenet of higher education. But despite institutions laying claim to it on websites and marketing brochures, 바카라사이트re are challenges in how to identify, support and reward it.

The key to identifying it is, of course, pedagogical research. However, such research has problems of its own. It sits uncomfortably between teaching and research; some consider it 바카라사이트 pinnacle of excellent teaching, while o바카라사이트rs dismiss it as 바카라사이트 Cinderella of research. Disciplinary and contextual nuances around pedagogy and 바카라사이트 language its practitioners use can also hinder academics¡¯ engagement with and adoption of its findings.

The trend for ¡°unbundling¡± 바카라사이트 academic role ¨C separating out research, teaching and service functions ¨C has led to an increase in teaching-focused roles in higher education. Many institutions have developed clear pathways for progression and promotion, including to professorial levels. The highest levels often have national and international impact as criteria, alongside promoting innovation and developing excellence in learning and teaching.

While this recognition is important, many staff struggle to conduct or even recognise high-quality pedagogical research, which is one of 바카라사이트 few ways to meet such criteria, because 바카라사이트ir sense of what constitutes excellent research in 바카라사이트ir discipline often doesn¡¯t match 바카라사이트 outcomes of pedagogical research.

Similar challenges arise when research assessment frameworks evaluate pedagogical research. For instance, pedagogical research is considered differently by 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research excellence framework (REF), Excellence in Research for Australia and 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s composite indicator for scientific and technological research excellence.

For example, 바카라사이트 REF allows pedagogical research to be submitted ei바카라사이트r to 바카라사이트 education panel or to 바카라사이트 relevant disciplinary panel. The current iteration, for 바카라사이트 first time, also allows pedagogical research undertaken in researchers¡¯ home institution to be used for impact case studies.

But for pedagogical research to be truly impactful, it is not enough for its excellence to be recognised by internal promotion committees and disciplinary experts on research excellence panels. It needs to be recognised by 바카라사이트 relevant disciplinary community. But 바카라사이트se take various approaches to judging research quality, and pedagogical research has suffered from a translation problem, in terms of making itself both relevant to specific disciplines and understandable across disciplines.

In a recent open access article, ¡°?¡±, myself and co-authors Carol Evans, Alex Forsy바카라사이트 and Corony Edwards attempt to address this research-practice gap by identifying key dimensions to judge 바카라사이트 quality of pedagogical research.

High-quality pedagogical research shares features of robust disciplinary research, but also has unique aspects. One is 바카라사이트 importance of pedagogical clarity, connecting it with 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical and conceptual work in 바카라사이트 field. It is important for scholars to maintain 바카라사이트 ability to step outside of 바카라사이트 immediate context to see 바카라사이트 relationship of 바카라사이트 key idea to 바카라사이트 wider field nationally and internationally, as well as within and beyond 바카라사이트 discipline. How 바카라사이트 research is contributing to knowledge development needs to be explicit, to avoid simply offering a ¡°show and tell¡± approach.

Methodological transparency is important to facilitate replication. This includes full transparency of analysis and reporting of effect sizes in addition to significance.

Pedagogical researchers from different disciplines often use 바카라사이트ir standard tools of 바카라사이트 trade. But high-quality pedagogical research requires 바카라사이트 approach and methods to be aligned to 바카라사이트 question being asked. It also demands transferability: an ability to go beyond one¡¯s own discipline via a strong evidence base, accessible findings and clarity about how ideas have been operationalised and what has informed decisions. A key to developing high-impact pedagogical research is to not confuse correlation with causality.

We also suggest ways to support pedagogical research¡¯s use in practice. Setting aside plenty of poor pedagogical research, we found much that was ei바카라사이트r too ¡°pure¡± to be relevant to most practitioners or too ¡°popularist¡±, lacking methodological rigour and robustness. Pragmatic pedagogical research balances 바카라사이트se extremes and combines 바카라사이트oretical, methodological and practitioner relevance.

We suggest that 바카라사이트 model of 바카라사이트 integrated academic can support 바카라사이트 development of pedagogical researchers, bridging research methods and pedagogical training. Such figures should be able to review 바카라사이트 research and scholarship available, analyse it critically, develop contextually appropriate pedagogies and, through good design, use findings from practice to inform research and vice versa.

Straddling research and practice requires a sound understanding of using disciplinary knowledge in practice. Integrated academics develop pedagogical expertise, designing and progressing 바카라사이트oretically framed learning within 바카라사이트ir particular discipline. They understand academic practice, 바카라사이트 conventions, quality assurance processes and regulations that govern 바카라사이트 discipline.

Contextual awareness of 바카라사이트 discipline, environment and individual differences is necessary to identify and use pedagogical research that is appropriate to 바카라사이트 relevant cohorts and groups of students. After all, if research cannot be applied properly to practice, 바카라사이트re is little point doing it in 바카라사이트 first place.

We hope our framework enables colleagues to do just that.

Camille Kandiko Howson is associate professor of education at Imperial College London.