The mediation effect of the research in teaching quality:balancing research and teaching efforts
Frederic MarimonJasmina Berbegal
Marta Mas
Index
1. Framework… description of current situation2. Empirical analysis: …in my university3. Conclusions: can it be applied to other
situations?
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
1 Framework……description of current situation
UIC : University of general purpose:
• Degree courses: 14• Number of students enrolled: 4.401
Undergraduates: 3.261Postgraduates: 1.140, of which:
371 are studying doctorate degrees421 are studying Masters courses348 are studying postgraduate degrees
• Number of students per lecture: 60-80• Professor / student ratio: 7,55• Number of teachers: 583• Staff: 242• Proportion of UIC graduates who successfully secure employment:
88,75%….1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
1 Framework……description of current situation
• UIC is a private university; all revenues comes from students' tuitions; no government support is received.
• Our tuitions are 10 times the public fees…• Why should someone pay it?
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
1 Framework……description of current situation
A high proportion (40%) of the teaching programme is set aside for practical-based classes. Most of our teachers have professional backgrounds and the university nurtures a very close relationship with business via its work experience programmes. The aim is to equip the student with all the knowledge, skills and talents demanded by the market, while also providing a solid training in the fundamental values of Christian Humanism.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
1 Framework……description of current situation
Aim:Student satisfaction
Promotion on students satisfaction?
Retribution system:1. Promotion based on accreditations2. Academic activity charge based on “Agreement”
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
1 Framework……description of current situation
Retribution system:1. Promotion based on accreditations2. Activity charge based on “Agreement”
The national agencies for university quality provide “ACCREDITATION” for academics (based mainly on research):
The higher the accreditation you got, the higher the position your university will give you
The activity is based on:
• 33% Teaching• 33% Research• 33% Management
Increasing Research will decrease teaching
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
1 Framework……description of current situation
Aim:Student satisfaction
Promotion on students satisfaction?
Retribution system:1. Promotion based on accreditations2. Activity charge based on “Agreement”
Formal message is:
“Take good care of your students”
Retribution system message is:
“Take good care of your research”
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my university
• Introduction• Objective• Methodology• Results
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityIntroduction
research
teachingParadigm A
Paradigm B
Paradigm C
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityIntroduction
Three paradigms
A. Teaching and research are complementary and mutually reinforcing.
B. Teaching and research are mutually exclusive.
C. Teaching and research have no interrelation.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
PARADIGM ATeaching and research are complementary and mutually reinforcing ...
• Research favors updating knowledge.
• Textbooks may not be current in rapidly developing areas.
• Research helps instill a critical approach rather than a passive acceptance of facts.
• Students appreciate academics who present their research and engage in discussion.
• A successful research professor increases confidence, leading to better performance in the classroom.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
PARADIGM BTeaching and research are mutually exclusive.
• Time is limited; conflicts might arise balancing effort between teaching and research.
• Teaching and research require different features and it is unlikely that the same person might accomplishes high performance in both.
• The promotion based solely on academic research causes diminishing effort devoted to teaching.
• Scholars try to incorporate their research on the content of their teaching program.
• Research can lead to strong viewpoints and consequently to be inflexible to alternative views raised in the classroom.
• Researchers tend to keep their syllabus level too high.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityIntroduction
research
teaching
…even though…Can an academic has two "standards" of behavior? Degree & Masters
…master degree
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityObjective
Assessing to which extent the student satisfaction is influenced by the experience of the lecturer or by the research quality of the lecturer.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityMethodology
• Sample: 229 academics of UIC with official accreditation in research
• Variables– Satisfaction– Experience (years in UIC)– Research quality
• Validation of the quality teaching scale• Assessing the mediation role of “research” between
experience and student’s satisfaction (teaching quality)
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityMethodology: variables
Variables: Satisfaction (teaching quality)
Planification
Interaction
Results
Organisation & PlanningThe reading list and additional materials for the course contributed to improving my appreciation and understanding of the subject.The course organisation and activities were well prepared and thoroughly explained by the lecturer.The workload of this course was appropriate to set time for learning.
Implementation & Interaction The lecturer clearly presents and highlights the most important points of the course.The students were encouraged by the lecturer to take part in the class discussions.The lecturer properly answers students’ questions and guides students in the development of the different tasks to be completed.The lecturer uses didactic resources that facilitate the learning process.The content of the exams and other assessed assignments matched the course contentThe lecturer showed a genuine interest in all of the students and was readily available to students outside of class time.
ResultsThe task performed by this lecturer has helped me to improve my knowledge, skills or attitudes.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityMethodology: variables
Variables: Research quality(Accreditation ANECA or AQU)
Coding Accreditation (Original name)Accreditation
agency0 Professor de universitat privada AQU
1Profesor colaborador ANECAProfessor col·laborador AQU
2Profesor ayudante doctor ANECALector AQU
3Profesor contratado doctor ANECAProfesor de universidad privada ANECA
4 Profesor titular ANECA5 Professor agregat AQU6 Profesor catedrático ANECA7 Catedràtic d’universitat AQU
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityMethodology: validation satisfaction scale
Satisfaction construct: reliability and validityOrganization Interaction
item standardized load t-value r2 item standard
ized load t-value r2
P1 0.890 - 0.792 P4 0.949 - 0.900P2 0.908 14.854 0.824 P5 0.924 22.408 0.853P3 0.900 14.205 0.810 P6 0.963 39.599 0.927
P7 0,955 26.583 0.912P8 0,906 18.893 0.821P9 0.781 9.071 0.609
Alpha Cronbach 0.922 0.968CR 0.927 0.969AVE 0.809 0.837
Fit indices Identified model
Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 = 31.58(9 freedom degrees) p-value = 0.00024Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.944RMSEA = 0.105
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityMethodology: Non-parametric test for the three
dimensions of satisfaction No-parametric
test for independent
samples
Categories comparison Test for independent samples Dimension Significance Result
1 Gender Women, Men Mann–Whitney U testPlanification 0.896
No differenceInteraction 0.814
Results 0.734
2 Faculty ARQ, CES, CJP, COM ,EDU ,FCS, HUM, ODO Kruskall-Wallis testPlanification 0.000
Significant differencesInteraction 0.000
Results 0.000
3 Knowledge area Engineering, Health Sciences, Social and Law sciences, Humanities Kruskall-Wallis test
Planification 0.001Significant differencesInteraction 0.003
Results 0.024
4 Study level Master, degree Mann–Whitney U testPlanification 0.202
No differenceInteraction 0.191
Results 0.483
5 Academic position
Col·laborador, Ajudant, Ajudant doctor, Adjunt, Lector, Contractat Doctor, Agregat, Catedràtic Kruskall-Wallis test
Planification 0.307No
differenceInteraction 0.224Results 0.180
6 Institutional relationship Funtional, Organical Mann–Whitney U test
Planification 0.494No
differenceInteraction 0.675Results 0.373
7 Accredited research
Professor de universitat privada AQU, Profesor colaborador ANECA, Professor col·laborador AQU , Profesor ayudante doctor ANECA, Lector AQU, Profesor contratado doctor ANECA ,Profesor de universidad privada ANECA, Profesor titular ANECA, Professor agregat AQU, Profesor catedrático ANECA, Catedràtic d’universitat AQU
Kruskall-Wallis test
Planification 0.000
Significant differences
Interaction 0.000
Results 0.000
8Internal teaching assessment Improvement is required, favorable, very favorable Kruskall-Wallis test
Planification 0.003Significant differencesInteraction 0.015
Results 0.019
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityMethodology: models
Experience Qualityc’ (a) Model for the total effect
of experience on quality
Experience
Research
Quality
a b
c
(b) Model for the mediator effect of research between experience and quality
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityResults: Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
SEM1 (total effect) SEM2 (composed effect)
Dependent variables
Independent variables Quality Research Quality
Experience 0.086 (1.449) c’ 0.431 (6.745) a 0.210 (2.919) c
Research - - -0.287 (-3.993) b
R2 0.007 0.186 0.075In the cells the standardized coefficients and in brackets its t-values.
The letters a, b, c, c’ correspond to the notation in figure 1.
Fit indices
Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 (fd) 110.42 (42) 131.48 (51)S-B scales χ2/ freedom degrees 2.63 2.58
Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.923 0.923Root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.085 0.083
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityResults: Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
Standardized coefficient(t-statistic)
Experience
Research
Quality
a b
c
Experience Qualityc’
0,086(1.449)
0,431(6.745)
0,210(2.919)
-0,287(-3.993)
1.- According to the typology of Zhao et al. (2010), this is the case of competitive mediation (1).
c’ = c + (a*b)
c‘: total effectc: direct effecta*b: indirect effect
2.- Both direct and indirect effect are significant, but pointing in opposite direction
3.-Current incentive systems at universities impacts negatively on student satisfaction
(1) a*b is significant, according to the Sobel statistic
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityResults: multigroup analysis according to the
institutional relationship (functional vs organic)
Standardized Paths
Non standardized paths(t-value)
Univariate increment
Functional subsample
Organic subsample χ2 Probability
Research → Teaching quality -0.181 -0.354 -0.089 (-3.927) * 4.620 0.032
Experience → Teaching quality -0.011 -0.022 -0.002 (-0.294) 1.556 0.212
Experience → Research -0.042 -0.043 -0.019 (-0.978) 1.465 0.226
Teaching quality → Results 0.942 0.895 1.163 (16.903) * 0.547 0.460
Teaching quality → Interaction 0.993 1.000 1.214 (15.098) * 0.010 0.919
Experience
Research
Quality
a b
c
The “b” path is significantly different: it is more negative for the organic staff. Apparently, they do not care so much for their teaching.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
2 Empirical analysis: …in my universityResults: multigroup analysis according to the knowledge area
(health&thecnics vs social&law&humanities)
Experience
Research
Quality
ab
c
-0.248 (h&t)-0.170 (ssc&hum)
0.143 (h&t)0.092 (ssc&hum)
The “competitive mediation” for health and technic areas is stronger than in social and humanities sciences
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
3 Conclusions
Dilemma for the managers of the university.
Research is needed:• Prestigious of the university depends on research.• The official evaluation of the degrees from the government
also is highly based in the quality of the research.• Policies to develop academic careers in the university
depend at great extent on the research
Teaching quality is needed:• Student’s tuition is the only income.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
3 Conclusions
Dilemma for the academics.
Research is required in order to improve their position: academics that have reached a high level in their research are neglecting their teaching responsibilities.
1. The higher the research level an academic attain, the higher the tendency to develop research.
2. Getting an organic position causes a relaxation in the teaching effort, since the position is stable and the future evolution depends mainly on research.
3. Once an academic has been enrolled in some projects and research groups, and consequently increasing the research level, the lecturer gets an impetus in order to go on with his/her research, forcing him/her to devote time to research in detriment of teaching, etc…
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
3 Conclusions
research
teaching
Paradigm B
2.- Management messages
1.- There is a tradeoff between lecturing and research
2a Formal communication:Prioritizes teaching
2b : Retribution systemPrioritizes research
Academic decision • Problems with “Student satisfaction”• Good performance in the university system
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
3 Conclusions
• In other words… without research, the students’ satisfaction would increase in a high degree; nevertheless, the system (the government that authorizes providing university titles) does not allow it.
• Co-exist two aims, apparently both competing for the academic talent.
• Lecturers decide focusing on research, looking for personal objective, neglecting teaching efforts.
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
3 Conclusions
research
teachingHow to migrate to the excellence area?
1 Framework… 2 Empirical analysis… 3 Conclusions
Thank you very much…