aalborg universitet bridging the gap research as a ... · bridging the gap. research as a practice...

Aalborg Universitet

Bridging the gap

Research as a practice to link higher education research and educational development

Scholkmann, Antonia

Published in:die hochschullehre

Creative Commons LicenseCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Publication date:2017

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication from Aalborg University

Citation for published version (APA):Scholkmann, A. (2017). Bridging the gap: Research as a practice to link higher education research andeducational development. die hochschullehre, 3. http://www.hochschullehre.org/wp-content/files/die_hochschullehre_2017_Scholkmann_Bridging_the_Gap.pdf

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: September 27, 2020

https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/5ec4e1bd-b69e-4a64-a52c-cacccae8247d

http://www.hochschullehre.org/wp-content/files/die_hochschullehre_2017_Scholkmann_Bridging_the_Gap.pdf

http://www.hochschullehre.org/wp-content/files/die_hochschullehre_2017_Scholkmann_Bridging_the_Gap.pdf

J Jahrgang3,2017 www.hochschullehre.org

www.hochschullehre.org d i e h o c h s c h u l l e h r e 2017

AntoniaScholkmann

Bridging the gap. Research as a practice to linkhigher education research and educational devel-opment

Abstract

Research into higher education has gainedmomentum over the last two decades.Higher education research results, however, are often not sufficiently integrated ineducational development processes. Also, vice versa, educational development’sknowledge and experience tends tobenot extensively considered in thedesignofnewresearchprojects.Thefollowingpaperarguesthatthephenomenonofamutualalienness between higher education research and educational development can beexplainedbythreesystem-specificchallenges:Firstly,highereducationconstitutesit-self at multiple levels and across multiple academic disciplines and hence is re-searchedbydifferentacademicdisciplines;secondly,highereducationresearchfluc-tuatesbetweenbeingeitherdescriptiveoractivatingandconsequentlysuffersfromeitherlackofpracticalrelevanceormethodologicalrigor;thirdly,highereducationre-searchandeducationaldevelopmentbelongtodifferentorganisationalsub-systems,i.e.theknowledge-producingandtheorganisationdevelopingsystem.Asonepossi-blewaytoovercomethesechallenges,researchasacommonpracticebetweenthesystemsisadvocated.

Keywords

Higher education research; educational development; incompatibility; research inte-gration

AntoniaScholkmann 2


1 Research into higher education–a servant to too manymasters?Researchintoteachingandlearninginhighereducationhasgainedmomentumover

the last two decades. This is at least partly due to an increased demand for evidence-based decision-making in political initiatives such as theBologna process (Curaj,Matei,Pricopie,Salmi&Scott,2015).However,beyondtheirinformationalfunction,higheredu-cation teaching and learning research results are under the strain of often not findingtheirways into educational developmentprocesseswithin institutionsof higher educa-tion, and vice versahigher education teachers anddevelopers strugglewith finding re-searchthatanswersthehands-onquestionstheyencounterintheirdailywork.

Theproblempointedouthere,themutualaliennessbetweenresearchanddevelop-ment inhighereducation isnotnew, andhasbeen studiedbefore. Forexample, it hasbeendemonstrated, that, in institutionsofhighereducation in theUnitedKingdom, re-search-informedteachingstrategiesonlyhaveminorimpactonactualteachingpracticesofindividualteachers(Cox,McIntosh,Reason&Terenzini,2011).Viceversa,highereduca-tiondevelopershavebeenshowntoperceivethemselvesasabsentininstitutionaldevel-opmentprocesses(Smith,2008).

Toovercomethisgap, theunderlyingmechanismsthat leadtomutualaliennessbe-tweenhighereducationresearchanddevelopmentmustbecarefullyelaborated. InthepresentpaperIwilldiscusthreecausesforthisalienness:Thefirst istheconstitutionofhighereducationasamulti-levelledandmulti-disciplinaryfield,bothresearch-anddevel-opment-wise.Thesecondisthathighereducationresearchresultscanbeeitherdescrip-tiveoractivating innature,whichchallengestheacceptanceof theseresultsonthere-searchorthedevelopmentsideofhighereducation.Thirdandfinal,asystemicincompat-ibilitybetween theknowledgeproducingand theknowledgeapplying system inhighereducation must be discussed. These three causes can also be seen as challenges thatneedtobeaddressedinordertobridgethegapbetweenhighereducationresearchanddevelopment(foranoverviewseetab.1.).

Table1:Specificchallengesforhighereducationresearchanddevelopment

Challenge

1. Highereducationasamulti-levelledandmulti-disciplinaryfield

2. Descriptivevs.activatingresearch

3. Theresearchvs.thedevelopmentsystemofhighereducation

3 Bridgingthegap

d i e h o c h s c h u l l e h r e 2017 www.hochschullehre.org

2 Specific challenges for higher education research anddevelopment

2.1 Highereducationasamulti-levelledandmulti-disciplinaryfield

Thefieldofhighereducationhasbeendescribedasbeingequallyinhabitedbyteach-ers,researcherandeducationaldevelopers(Merkt,2014).Inaccordancewiththat,adis-tinctionhasbeenmadebetweenvariousfocithathighereducationalresearchanddevel-opmentcantake,being“teachers'learning,teachers'behaviour,theinstitution,andthestudents”(Stes,Min-Leliveld,Gijbels&VanPetegem,2010:25).Asonewaytostructurethe diverse andmultifaceted field of higher education it hast become accepted to de-scribeitattheorganisationalmicro-,meso-andmacro-level(e.g.BundesministeriumfürBildungundForschung,2013;Schaper,2014).

Inamodelbasedonearlierauthors(Flechsig&Haller,1975;Wildt,2002)higheredu-cationlevelsaredistinguishedwithrespecttoaffordancesandtasks(fig.1).Althoughthismodeldoesn’tproposesomethingcompletelynew, it isappealingbecause itallowsforthetakingofbotharesearchaswellasadevelopmentperspectiveoneachofthelevels.Moreover, it conceptualises higher education as a cultural, organizational and interac-tional space, which comprises intended and unintended learning opportunities at thesame time, andwhich facilitates the acquisition of subject-specific and generic compe-tenciesaswellaspersonaldevelopmentandgrowth(Wildt,2002).Withthat,higheredu-cation research and development are constituted as grounded in systemic affordancesandhenceshouldbetreatedholistically,ratherthanfragmented.

Figure1:Highereducationlevels(afterFlechsig&Haller,1975;Wildt,2002)Thevariouslevelsatwhichhighereducationtakesplacearestronglymirroredinvari-

ousdisciplinary-boundtheoreticalknowledgeandresultingmethodologicalapproaches,

AntoniaScholkmann 4


research-wise(Schaper,2014).Amongstothers, theseareEducationalSciences,PoliticalSciences, Educational Psychology and Sociology (for an overview see Schneijderberg,Kloke& Braun, 2011). However, also other disciplines have been demonstrated to con-tributetotheresearchanddevelopmentofhighereducation(e.g.CentenoGarcia,2016;vandenBerk,2013).Butnotonlyinhighereducationresearchweseemultipledisciplinaryapproaches,alsoineducationaldevelopmentthereisavidevarietyoffunctionsthatedu-cationaldevelopers fulfil.Amongstothers,educationaldevelopers fulfil tasksasdiverseas training teachers (relating to the lower levels of the models) over consulting oncourse-design(medium levels) toorganisationaldevelopmentand leadership tasks (toplevels, D’Andrea & Gosling, 2001; Gibbs, 2013; Scholkmann, Sommer & Petersen, 2014).RecentempiricalevidencefromtheGermancontexthasshownthattheworkforceper-forming themultitudeofeducationaldevelopment taskshasabroadvarietyofdiscipli-nary professional backgrounds (Stolz & Scholkmann, in prep.), thus substantiating theclaimthateducationaldevelopmentistrulya“familyofstrangers”(Harland&Staniforth,2008,p.669).

Themultiple levelsandmultipledisciplinaryapproachestohighereducationasare-searchanddevelopmentfieldcanbeseenasachallengeinitself:Researchersanddevel-opers eventually tend to solely focus upon their respective area of interest and to beoblivioustoperspectivesandapproachestakenatotherlevelsorfromotherdisciplinaryperspectives.

2.2 Descriptivevs.activatingresearchHighereducationtendstoberesearchedwithoneoftwodifferentfoci.Oneisshed-

ding light on fundamental questions; the other is gaining scholarly insights for its im-provement. This dichotomy canbedescribed as “descriptive” vs. “activating” research(see below for references), and be attributed to divergent underlying epistemologicalrationales. For theGerman context it canbe also argued that takingoneof those twoapproachesisintertwinedwithdifferentkindsofresearchfunding(fig.2).

Figure2.Descriptivevs.activatingapproachesinhighereducationresearch

2.1.1. DescriptiveresearchResearch(inhighereducationandbeyond)istraditionallytiedtotheacademicdisci-

plines,theirunderlyingtheories,epistemologicalbeliefsandmethodologicalapproaches(Neumann, Parry & Becher, 2002).Within these boundaries, the predominant researchinterestistoextendthebodyofknowledgeprevalentinaspecificfieldratherthansolv-

5 Bridgingthegap


inghands-onquestions.Thistypeofresearch,althoughvariedinawidearrayofmethod-ologicalapproaches,hasbeencharacterisedoverallasbeing“descriptive”(Tsang,1997),amongstothers,becauseitstrivesforthedocumentationandexplanationofphenome-nawithoutclaimingdirectimpactondevelopmentissues.

Oneexampleforthiskindofeducationalresearchistheanalysisofstudents’learningprocessesconductedattheInstituteforBusinessandVocationalEducationatUniversitätHamburg.Anon-goingresearchprojectherefocusesongainingabetterunderstandingof the teaching and learning processes that take place in open, self-directed learningphasesinpostsecondaryeducation.Thespecificityofthisprojectliesinthecombinationofvideo-andaudio-analysesofclassroommaterialinitsscientificanalyses.

Video-andaudioanalysishasbeenusedasaresearchtoolineducationalresearchbe-fore(e.g.Hugeneretal.,2009;Seidel,Sturmer,Blomberg,Kobarg&Schwindt,2011;vandePol,Volman,Oort&Beishuizen,2014).Methodologicallyitdrawsontheparadigmofbehaviour observation,which often providesmore valid data as for instance question-naires(Scholkmann,2009b).Althoughgatheringdatainaveryhands-onandnaturalisticsituation (the classroom), video data yield the potential to contribute to a discipline’stheoretical ormethodological advancement, because it allows for very fine-grained in-sightsintolearningprocesses,aswasthecaseinthestudiespresentedhere.

Inastudyweanalysedfactorsthatinfluencedtheeffectiveuseofthelearningtimeinopen, self-directed learning situations (Scholkmann, Siemon, Boom&Knigge, in print).Learningtime,alsoreferredtoas“timeontask”(vanGog,2012)or“academic learningtime”(Brodhagen&Gettinger,2012,p.33),isthetimespentworkingactively,successful-lyandproductivelyonagivenassignment.Inthementionedvideo-basedstudy,timeontaskwasinferredfromactualvideomaterialofaday-longgame-basedassignmentwhichwascompletedby3groupswithinatotalof59students.Approximately24hoursofvid-eomaterialwere time-sampled in 10-second intervalsby two independent coders,withsatisfactory intercoder-reliabilities around Kappa .70 or higher. Additionally, studentsweresurveyedfortheirlearninggoalorientations,whichtheoreticallyandempiricallyareoneof themostpotentconstructs toexplainacademicengagementandsuccess in theclassroom(e.g.Elliot,1999;Pintrich,2000).

Basedonatwo-steppedhierarchicalregressionmodel,theresultsofthisstudyshowthatstudents’timeontaskwasinfluencedbylearninggoalorientationsbutnotbyothervariables.Most outstandingly, it could be demonstrated that not a student’s owngoalorientationshad influenceonhis/her timeontask,butalsothegoalorientationsof thelearningpartner,withwhomastudentwasworkingontheassignment.Moreover,spe-cificpatternscouldbeseenastowhetherthemotivationofthestudentitselforthemo-tivationofthelearningpartnerhadagreaterimpact.

Aswecanseefromthisexample,descriptiveresearchisprofoundlygroundedinthe-oretical underpinnings and refers to well-established educational research constructs.However,practical implicationsforthedevelopmentofteachingandlearningaresome-whathardtoinfer.Confrontedwiththefindings,colleaguesfromtheeducationaldevel-opmentsidewillask:“Woulditbewisetotestallstudentsfortheirlearninggoalorienta-tionsbeforeassigningthemtoteamsworkingonopen,self-directedtasks?”Or:“Andifso, is itwisetoallocatestudents tospecific teams insteadof lettingthemchoose inde-

AntoniaScholkmann 6


pendentlywhomtheywanttoworkwith?”Thediscipline-andtheory-relatednessofthisresearchhencemayhamperitsreceptionanduseindevelopmentprocesses,becauseitdoesn’tprovideasolutiontohands-onquestions(Becker,2008).

2.1.2. ActivatingresearchOpposedtotheabove-mentioneddescriptiveapproach,anothertypeofeducationalre-search canbeobserved,which arises fromquestions about the expected impact of in-structionalandorganisational interventions.Thistypeofresearchhasbeencalled“acti-vating” (Metz-Göckel,Kamphans&Scholkmann, 2012)because the research results areintendedtofeedbackoneffectsof instructional interventionsororganisationalchangeand to activate teachers and administrators to adopt new approaches and concepts(Metz-Göckel,2008).1

In theGermancontextwehave seenmanyexamplesof this research in the recentfunding lines intended to feedbackon improvementof higher education teaching andlearning.OneofthemwasthefundinglineHochschulforschungalsBeitragzurQualitätderHochschullehre” (engl: Higher education research as a contribution to the quality ofteachingandlearning).2Withinthisfundingline,over30projectssetouttoshedlightonvariousaspectsofhowlearning,instructionandorganisationinhighereducationcouldorshouldbedeveloped(Bergetal.,2013;Ricken,Roters&Scholkmann,2009).3

One example is the project PBL-Wirksamkeit Problembasierten Lernens alshochschuldidaktische Methode (engl: PBL-Efficacy of Problem-based Learning), whichtook place between 2009-2012. The overall objective of the project was to generateknowledgeandexpertisewithrespecttowhethertheinstructionalapproachofProblem-based learning (PBL,e.g.Barrows, 1996;Loyens,Kirschner&Paas, 2012) shouldbe rec-ommendedonabroaderbasistoinstitutionsofhighereducationintheGermancontext.In one of several studies within this project, samples in Sweden, the Netherlands andGermanywerecomparedunderthequestionwhetherPBLyieldsanadvantageovermoretraditional forms of learning when it comes to the acquisition of deep understanding(Scholkmann,Loyens,et.al,2014).Withinthisstudy,theSOLO-taxonomy(Biggs&Collis,41982)wasusedasaframeworkforthedepthofunderstandinggainedbystudentswhenattendingaPBL-vs.atraditionallecture-basedcourse.IntotalN=219studentsparticipat-ed,withtheresultsshowingvariouslevelsofunderstandingforallparticipatingstudents,butnotforthePBL-vs.thelecture-basedstudygroups.

In another study an evaluation was conducted together with Swiss colleagues(Scholkmann&Küng, 2016). The5main focusof this studywere competences studentsexperiencedtogainthroughlearninginaproblem-basedcourseinadisciplineotherthanmedicine (where PBL has been originally implemented and also researched to a great

1Theterm„implementationresearch“(e.g.Euler&Sloane, 1998)wasnotchosenhere,because2http://www.hochschulforschung-bmbf.de/de/1312.php3Anotherexampleforthistypeoffundingistheon-goinglineBegleitforschungzumQualitätspakt

Hochschullehre,http://www.hochschulforschung-bmbf.de/de/1622.php

7 Bridgingthegap


deal, e. g. Loyens, Kirschner& Paas, 2012). Findings frommedical education indicatedthat the main benefits of PBL were to foster communicative competences as well asproblem-solvingskills.However,thedatafromthisstudyshowedthat,comparedtoav-erage students in education-related programs, students learning in the program undersurveyweremorelikelytoperceivehighcompetenceacquisitionsinsystematicandper-sonal competences, i.e. researchmethods, personalmotivation, and interest (formoredetailsseeScholkmann&Küng,2016,p.71ff.).

Aswe see from this example activating research rooted in development-related in-formational questionsmay suffer from a lack of tight coupling to disciplinary-foundedmethodologicalstandards.Hencethistypeofpracticallyrelevantresearchmaystrugglewith finding recognition in disciplinary-bound research communities (Berg et al., 2013).Thispartlycanbeattributedtothefactthatdevelopmentquestionsareexpectedtobeansweredthroughfieldstudies,whichcanleadtodifficultresearch-designs(becausenocomparable researchgroupscanbe found)and incompletemeasuresoranalyses (e.g.longitudinaldata,becausefundingwillrundrywithinalimitedtime).Also,theoftenin-terdisciplinaryapproachinthistypeofstudieshasbeenshowntobeachallenge(Rafols,Leydesdorff,O’Hare,Nightingale&Stirling,2012).However, the impactofactivatingre-searchoneducationaldevelopmentmustbeconsideredashigh: itmay increaseaware-ness for new concepts and instructional approaches and nourish on-going discussionsandjointdevelopmentaleffortsamongstteachers,educationaldevelopers,andadminis-trators.

2.3 Theresearchvs.thedevelopmentsystemofhighereducation

Besidesthetwochallengesalreadydiscussed–thefactthathighereducationisamulti-levelled andmulti-disciplinary field and that higher education research varies in thede-greeinwhichitiseitherdescriptiveoractivating–athirdchallengeremainsforbringingtogethereducationalresearchanddevelopment.Thischallengeisthathighereducationresearchersandhighereducationdevelopersfollowdifferentgoals,usedifferentmeth-odsandusedifferentcriteriaforsuccess.Withthat,onecanclaimthatasystemicincom-patibilityexistsbetween theknowledgeproducingand theknowledgeapplyingsystemofhighereducation(tab.2).

Higher education research, as the knowledge producing system, is committed to-wards generating and distributing scholarly knowledge and to disseminating thisknowledge.However,thepracticesofgeneratinganddisseminatingknowledgepredom-inantly happenoutsideone’s own institution. This phenomenonhasbeen explainedbythefactthatinstitutionsofhighereducationareexpertorganisations,inwhichthemostimportant “currency” is reputation inferred from and indicated through collegial feed-backandpraise(Pellert,1999).Mechanismsoffeedbackandpraise,however,arenormal-lyrootedinthedisciplinarynetworksoutsideone’sowninstitution.Thisleadsresearcherstorelyonthesenetworksratherthanontheirindividualinstitutionsofhighereducationand show less commitment to the latter (Scholkmann, 2009a) and also to researchers'reluctancetoengageinintra-institutionaldevelopmentactivities(Hanft,2000).

Educationaldevelopment,astheothersystem,wantstoimproveteachingandlearn-ingataspecificinstitution,anduseswhateverresourceitcantoservethisgoal.Doingso,

AntoniaScholkmann 8


it is topic-centred (rather than discipline-centred) and hence oriented towards successcriteriawithin thespecific institution(rather thanoncross-institutionalcollegialpraise),whichisespeciallythesatisfactionofthe“customers”(teachersandacademicstaff)withtheserviceprovided(e.g.Sutherland,2015).

Table2:Researchvs.developmentsysteminhighereducation

Researchsystem Developmentsystem

Orientation

Discipline-oriented Topic-oriented

Successcriteriadefinedby…

Professionalnetworks Institutionalgoals

Performancecriterion Collegialfeedback “Customer”satisfaction

Workforceisrecruitedfrom… Discipline-specificbackgroundsandnetworks

Variousdisciplinaryback-grounds

The challenge that lies in these systemic differences between higher education re-

searchersanddevelopersisthatitendangersmutualunderstandingandcooperation.Forexample, educational developers,when asking about hands-on solutionsmight run theriskofbeingperceivedasuninformeddisturbingintrudersbecausetheyactcontradictorytotheresearch-immanentcollegialsystemiclogic.Viceversa,educationaldevelopersmayperceivetheireffortstogenerate impactwithinaspecific institutionasfragmentedandnotwell-implementedbecausetheyhavetocomplytounpredictableexternal(research-)demandsratherthantocoherentinstitutionalstrategies(Hughes,2009).

Ofcourse,withtheemergenceofeducationaldevelopmentasathirdspacebetweenadministration and research and educational developers as a „new tribe“ (D’Andrea&Gosling, 2001, p. 70),we see some flux in this straight dichotomy (e.g. Holt, Palmer &Challis,2011;Urban&Meister,2010).However,asotherauthorsbeforehavepointedout,we have to face the fact that disparities and tensions between higher education re-searchers and developers are and will be part of this emergent field (e. g. Abbas &Mclean,2003;Harland&Staniforth,2008).

3 Bridging the gap: Research as a practice to link highereducationresearchandeducationaldevelopmentAsapossiblewaytoovercomethegapbetweenresearchanddevelopment ingen-

eral,researchitselfcanbeadvocated.Thisargumentisbasedontheideathattoengage,onvariouslevels,intoresearchtodayispartofprofessionalacademicpracticeandshouldbeintegratedintoanyacademiccurriculum(e.g.Griffioen&deJong,2014).Manyinstruc-tionalconceptssuchas inquiry-based learningor theGerman ‘ForschendesLernen’em-bracetheideathatlearningfromresearchnotonlyservestheaimofknowledgecreation,butalsodevelopsan individual’s competence to reflect criticallyuponcomplex societalquestions(e.g.Brew,2003).

9 Bridgingthegap


Conceptually, research integrationhasbeenbroadlyadvocated foruniversity teach-ing by other authors before (e.g.Healey, 2005; Reinmann, 2016).However, the ideaofresearchintegrationintoeducationaldevelopmentisrelativelynew–andshouldnotbeputasidehastily.Weknowofotheracademicfieldsinwhich,similartohighereducation,bothresearchanddevelopmentareintegral,andforwhichresearchintegrationhasbeenactivelyadvocatedoverthe lastdecade(e.g.Alde,Cheek&Ballantyne,2009;Garnham,Cheek&Alde,2009;Gautam,2008;Rütten,Wolff&Streber,2015;Tucker&Lowe,2014;Tucker&Parker,2014;deWeert,2009).

Also in higher education research-integrated educational development strategieshave been advocated (Macfarlane& Hughes, 2009; Roxå&Mårtensson, 2008), as hasbeenanotionthateducationaldevelopmentisbasedonacademicproceduresandvaluesand hence should act on the basis of “academic professionalism” (Brew, 2002, p. 118).Given its specific challenges, I argue that research integration in the higher educationfield needs to be elaborated from at least three different perspectives: The first is therigoursintegrationofresearchintoacademicdevelopmentpracticeandtraining;these-condandequally important is the integrationof research into theprofessional profilesand qualifications of educational developers and the third the integration of researchpracticesintheinstitutionalisationofeducationaldevelopment.

Fromtheperspectiveofresearchintegrationintoacademicdevelopmentandtrainingwe can see that higher education teaching certificates strive to base themselvesmoreandmoreonempiricalandscholarlybasis,andintegrateresearchfindingsandactivitiesintotheircurricula(e.g.Brahm,Jenert&Euler,2016;vandenBerketal.,2015).Especiallythe latter, theactualexecutionofeducational research,hasalsoanepistemologicalun-derpinninginthewritingsoftheScholarshipofTeachingandLearning-movement(SoTL,e.g.Shulman,2000),whichhasfounditswayintotheGermancontextaswellinthelastdecade (Huber, 2014; Kordts-Freudinger, Schulte & Velibyoglu, 2016). Activities and re-sultswithinand fromSoTL-projects therebyserveasapromising interfacebetween re-searchanddevelopmentbecausebeyondprovidingscholarlyinsightsfortheparticipantsthey can serve as “(...) ameans of development oriented towardsmore local levels ofpractice.“(Geertsema,2016,p.122).

However, as has been elaborated above, educational developers work at multiplelevelsandinmultiplefunctions,andineachoftheirfunctionalrolestheyneedtobeabletodealwithcomplexnon-trivialproblemsandtonavigatethechallengesofthisnewandemergentfield(Shay,2012).Hence,fromasecondperspective,academicprofessionalismisnotonlyneededforuniversityteacherstodevelopinstudents,butalsoforeducationaldevelopers to develop and cultivatewithin themselves. This entails being aware of re-search findings and hold the ability to integrate them into ones ownwork.Moreover,researchasapracticeamongsteducationaldevelopersmustbecultivatedtostrengthenthemas credible changeagents towardsboth their clientsand their institutions (Brew,2002).Inordertomeetthosedemands,structuredprogramsareneededtoprofessional-ize(new)educationaldevelopers,whichintegrateresearchonhighereducationbothasaknowledgeresourceandasmethodologicalapproach.

Fromathirdperspective,finally,researchshouldalsobecomeanindispensablefactorintheinstitutionalizationofeducationaldevelopment,i.e.thestructuresandpoliciesthat

AntoniaScholkmann 10


makeeducationaldevelopmenthappen.This is thebiggestandcertainlymostchalleng-ingtask,becausethefragmentednatureofeducationaldevelopmentmirrorsalsointhefragmentedanddiverseorganisationalstructuresthatsupportanddeveloplearningandinstructioninhighereducation(Gibbs,2013;Macfarlane&Hughes,2009;Gosling,2009).At theonehand,educationaldevelopment isexpected to facilitate institutionalchangeand,asmentionedabove,onlyresearch-basedactivitiesyieldrichenoughinformationforcritical and non-trivial insights. But educational development units tend to be badlyequippedtocreatethoseinsights.Reasonsare(amongstothers)theirlackofacoherentpedagogicalvision,theirserviceorientation(alsoexpectedbythecustomers)andoverallan“instrumentalapproachtoprofessionaldevelopment”(vanHattum-Janssen,Morgado&Vieira,2012,p.41).

Inordertointegrateresearchintoeducationaldevelopmentattheinstitutionalleveltwopoints shouldbehighlighted: The first is thatorganisational structures areneededthatsupporteducationaldevelopersinconductingownresearchandapplyforindividualfunding.Thisquestionispivotal,sinceeducationaldevelopmentanditsstaffneedtoberecognisedbytheresearchsystematacollegialbasis.Viceversa,theresearchquestionsandpracticesofeducationaldevelopmentasavalid,autonomous,andgrowingresearchstrandwithinhighereducationresearchshouldberecognized.Ashasbeenargued, theaddedvalueofeducationaldevelopment-inspired researchmight lienot (only) in itsdi-rectusefulnessfor improvementofteachingand learningprocesses(Peseta,2007),butserveasalooking-glassfunctiononambiguitiesandchallengesoftheeducationaldevel-oper’srolesandfunctions(Hanson,2013).

4 ConclusionInthepresentpaperIhavearguedthathighereducationresearchanddevelopment

experiencealienness,andthatthisaliennesscanbeattributedtospecificsinthefield,theapproachesandthesystemofhighereducation.WiththatIhavefollowedtheintentionto show that higher education research’s and development’s struggle to find commongroundsshouldbetreatednotasafatebutachallenge,whichcanbeaddressedbyre-spectivemeasures.Apracticeofresearch integration intoeducationaldevelopmentcanbeawaytobridgethegap,becauseitpresentsasthecommongroundofacademicpro-fessionalismsharedbyboththeresearchandthedevelopmentcommunity,andbecauseresearchasacademicpracticeyields themeans toaddress thecomplex,non-trivial andchallengingproblemsthatshapinginstitutionsofhighereducationposeonadailybasis.

„Unless [academicdevelopmentunits] integrate andpromoteeducational inquiry, theywillhardlyplayacritical role indebatingand(re)shapingpedagogy inhighereducation.Instead, theywill tend to reinforcewhateverqualitydiscoursesandpracticesaredomi-nantinaparticulartimeandplace.“(vanHattum-Janssen,Morgado&Vieira,2012,p.42).

11 Bridgingthegap


References

Abbas, A. &Mclean, M. (2003). Communicative Competence and the Improvement ofUniversityTeaching: Insightsfromthefield.BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation,24(1),69–82.doi:10.1080/01425690301913

Barrows,H.S.(1996).Problem-basedlearninginmedicineandbeyond.InL.Wilkerson&W.H.Gijselaers(Eds.),Newdirectionsforteachingandlearning:Vol.68(S.3–13).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Becker, E. (2008). Wo bleibt das Gedächtnis der Universität? Erfahrungen und Ein-schätzungen eines Wissensmanagers. In A. Scholkmann, B. Roters, J. Ricken & M.Höcker(Eds.).HochschulforschungundHochschulmanagementimDialog.ZurPraxisrel-evanz empirischer Forschung über die Hochschule (S. 55–68). Münster [et a.]: Wax-mann.

Berg, H., Herzer,M., Schmidt, U., Zaviska, C., Heinzelmann, S.,Münch, C. & Pfeiffer, I.(2013,Juni5).EvaluierungderBMBF-Förderlinie„HochschulforschungalsBeitragzurProfessionalisierung der Hochschullehre“ − Abschlussbericht −. Bundesministeriumfür Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) und Universität Mainz. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hochschulforschung-bmbf.de/de/1312.php

Biggs,J.B.&Collis,K.(1982).EvaluatingtheQualityofLearning:TheSOLO-Taxonomy.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Brahm,T.,Jenert,T.&Euler,D.(Eds.).(2016).PädagogischeHochschulentwicklungVonderProgrammatikzurImplementierung.Wiesbaden:SpringerFachmedien.Retrievedfromhttp://public.eblib.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=4189796

Brew,A.(2002).Researchandtheacademicdeveloper:Anewagenda.InternationalJour-nalforAcademicDevelopment,7(2),112–122.doi:10.1080/1360144032000071332

Brew,A.(2003).TeachingandResearch:Newrelationshipsandtheir implicationsfor in-quiry-based teaching and learning in higher education.Higher Education Research&Development,22(1),3–18.doi:10.1080/0729436032000056571

Brodhagen, E.M. & Gettinger,M. (2012). Academic learning time. In N.M. Seel (Eds.),Encyclopediaofthesciencesoflearning(S.S.33–36).[S.l.]:Springer.

BundesministeriumfürBildungundForschung.(2013).BekanntmachungdesBundesmin-isteriumsfürBildungundForschungvonRichtlinienzurFörderungvonVorhabenderBegleitforschung zumQualitätspakt Lehre. Bundesministerium für Bildung und For-schung (BMBF). Retrieved fromwww.bmbf.de/foerderungen/bekanntmachung.php?B=893[09.10.2016]

CentenoGarcia,A.(2016).TextarbeitindergeisteswissenschaftlichenLehre.Berlin:Frank&Timme.

Cox,B.,McIntosh,K.,Reason,R.&Terenzini,P.(2011).ACultureofTeaching:Policy,Per-ception, andPractice inHigherEducation.Research inHigher Education,52(8), 808–829.doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9223-6

Curaj,A.,Matei,L.,Pricopie,R.,Salmi,J.&Scott,P.(2015).TheEuropeanhighereducationareabetweencriticalreflectionsandfuturepolicies.Retrievedfromdoi:10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0

D’Andrea,V.&Gosling,D.(2001).JoiningTheDots:ReconceptualizingEducationalDevel-opment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 64–80. doi:10.1177/1469787401002001006

DeWeert,E.(2009).TheOrganisedContradictionsofTeachingandResearch:ReshapingtheAcademicProfession.InJ.Enders&E.deWeert(Eds.).TheChangingFaceofAca-demic Life: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives (S. 134–154). London: PalgraveMacmillanUK.Retrievedfromhttp://dx.doi:10.1057/9780230242166_8



Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidancemotivation and achievement goals. Educa-tionalPsychologist,34(3),169–189.doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

Flechsig,K.H.&Haller,H.D.(1975).EinführungindidaktischesHandeln.Stuttgart:Klett.Garnham,B.,Cheek,J.&Alde,P.(2009).Theresearch/practicenexus:underlyingassump-

tionsaboutthenatureofresearchuptakeintopracticeinliteraturepertainingtocareof theolderperson. International JournalofOlderPeopleNursing,4(3),219–226.doi:10.1111/j.1748-3743.2009.00179.x

Gautam, K. (2008). Addressing the Research-Practice Gap in Healthcare Management:Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 155–159. doi:10.1097/01.PHH.0000311894.57831.4b

Geertsema, J. (2016). Academic development, SoTL and educational research. Interna-tional Journal for Academic Development, 21(2), 122–134. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2016.1175144

Gibbs,G.(2013).Reflectionsonthechangingnatureofeducationaldevelopment.Interna-tional Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4–14. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2013.751691

Gosling,D.(2009).EducationaldevelopmentintheUK:acomplexandcontradictoryreal-ity. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/13601440802659122

Griffioen,D.M.&deJong,U.(2014).Implementingresearchinprofessionalhighereduca-tion: Factors that influence lecturers’ perceptions. Educational Management Admin-istration&Leadership.doi:10.1177/1741143214523008

Hanft,A.(2000).SindHochschulenreform(un)fähig?EineorganisationstheoretischeAna-lyse.InA.Hanft(Ed.),Hochschulenmanagen?(S.3–24).NeuwiedandKriftel:Luchter-hand.

Hanson, J. (2013). Educationaldevelopersas researchers: the contributionof insider re-searchtoenhancingunderstandingofrole, identityandpractice. Innovations inEdu-cationandTeachingInternational,50(4),388–398.doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.806220

Harland,T.&Staniforth,D.(2008).Afamilyofstrangers:thefragmentednatureofaca-demic development. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(6), 669–678. doi:10.1080/13562510802452392

Healey,M.(2005).LinkingResearchandTeachingtoBenefitStudentLearning.JournalofGeographyinHigherEducation,29(2),183–201.doi:10.1080/03098260500130387

Holt,D.,Palmer,S.&Challis,D.(2011).Changingperspectives:teachingandlearningcen-tres’strategiccontributionstoacademicdevelopmentinAustralianhighereducation.International Journal for Academic Development, 16(1), 5–17. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.546211

Huber, L. (2014). Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Konzept, Geschichte, Formen,Entwicklungsaufgaben.InL.Huber,A.Pilniok,R.Sethe,B.Szczyrba&M.Vogel(Eds.).ForschendesLernenimeigenenFach(Bd.125,S.19–36).Bielefeld:W.BertelsmannVer-lag.

Hugener,I.,Pauli,C.,Reusser,K.,Lipowsky,F.,Rakoczy,K.&Klieme,E.(2009).TeachingpatternsandlearningqualityinSwissandGermanmathematicslessons.LearningandInstruction,19(1),66–78.doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.001

Hughes,C.(2009).Framingtheactivitiesofinstitutionsandacademicdevelopmentunitsinsupportofassessment. Innovations inEducationandTeaching International,46(2),123–133.doi:10.1080/14703290902843745

Kordts-Freudinger, R., Schulte, R. & Velibyoglu, N. (2016). Lehre und Forschung, For-schungundLehre– Lehrforschung!Vorwort zu: Lehr- undLernpraxis imFokus III –Reflexions-undForschungsbei-trägeausderUniversitätPaderborn.diehochschulleh-re,(2),1–4.

13 Bridgingthegap


Loyens,S.M.M.,Kirschner,P.A.&Paas,F.(2012).Problem-BasedLearning.InK.R.Har-ris, S. Graham& T. C. Urdan (Eds.),APA educational psychology handbook (S. 403–425).WashingtonandDC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Macfarlane,B.&Hughes,G.(2009).Turningteachersintoacademics?Theroleofeduca-tionaldevelopmentinfosteringsynergybetweenteachingandresearch. InnovationsinEducationandTeachingInternational,46(1),5–14.doi:10.1080/14703290802646214

Merkt, M. (2014). Hochschuldidaktik und Hochschulforschung. Eine Annäherung überSchnittmengen.diehochschule,1/2014,49–62.

Metz-Göckel, S. (2008).HochschulforschungalsKo-ProduktionvonErkenntnissen. InA.Scholkmann, B. Roters, J. Ricken & M. Höcker (Eds.), Hochschulforschung undHochschulmanagement im Dialog. Zur Praxisrelevanz empirischer Forschung über dieHochschule(S.139–169).Münster[etal.]:Waxmann.

Metz-Göckel,S.,Kamphans,M.&Scholkmann,A.(2012).HochschuldidaktischeForschungzur Lehrqualität und Lernwirksamkeit. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2),213–232.doi:10.1007/s11618-012-0274-z

Neumann, R., Parry, S. & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in Their DisciplinaryContexts:AConceptualAnalysis.StudiesinHigherEducation,27(4),405–417.

Pellert,A.(1999).DieUniversitätalsOrganisation:dieKunst,Expertenzumanagen.Wien:Böhlau.

Peseta, T. (2007). Troubling our Desires for Research andWritingwithin the AcademicDevelopment Project. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(1), 15–23.doi:10.1080/13601440701217253

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues inmotivationterminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–104.

Tucker, B. P.& Lowe,A.D. (2014). Practitioners are fromMars; academics are fromVe-nus?: An investigation of the research-practice gap inmanagement accounting.Ac-counting,Auditing&AccountabilityJournal,27(3),394–425.doi:10.1108/AAAJ-01-2012-00932

Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P. & Stirling, A. (2012). How journalrankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between InnovationStudiesandBusiness&Management.ExploringtheEmergingKnowledgeBaseof„TheKnowledgeSociety“,41(7),1262–1282.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015

Reinmann,G.(2016).ForschungsorientierunginderakademischenLehre.ImpactFree,(1).Retrievedfromhttp://gabi-reinmann.de/

Ricken, J., Roters, B. & Scholkmann, A. (2009). Projekt PBL: Wirksamkeit problemba-sierten Lernens als hochschuldidaktischeMethode. Journal Hochschuldidaktik, 20(1),7–10.

Roxå,T.&Mårtensson,K.(2008).Strategiceducationaldevelopment:anationalSwedishinitiative to support change inhigher education.Higher EducationResearch&Devel-opment,27(2),155–168.doi:10.1080/07294360701805291

Rütten,A.,Wolff,A.&Streber,A.(2015).NachhaltigeImplementierungevidenzbasierterProgramme in der Gesundheitsförderung: Theoretischer Bezugsrahmen und einKonzept zum interaktiven Wissenstransfer. Das Gesundheitswesen, 78(03), 139–145.doi:10.1055/s-0035-1548883

Schaper, N. (2014). Forschung in der Hochschulbildung. In J. Kohler, P. Pohlenz & U.Schmidt (Eds.).DasHandbuchQualität inStudiumundLehre (S.D2.4–1).Berlin:DUZVerlags-undMedienhausGmbH.

Schneijderberg, C., Kloke, K. & Braun, E. (2011). Disziplinäre Zugänge zur Hochschul-forschung.diehochschule,(2),7–24.



Scholkmann, A. (2009a). Die Zielakzeptanz von Dekanen: Eine empirische Analyse vonEinflussvariablenaufdieZielakzeptanzvonUniversitätsdekaneninBezugaufuniver-sitäreReformvorgaben.Dortmund.Retrievedfromhttp://hdl.handle.net/2003/26527

Scholkmann, A. (2009b). Verhaltensbeobachtung zum Bullying in Schulen: Konzeptionund Evaluation eines Verfahrens zur Beobachtung von Aggression im schulischenKontext.Saarbrücken:VDMVerl.Müller.

Scholkmann,A.&Küng,M.(2016).Students’AcquisitionofCompetencesthroughProb-lem-basedLearning.ReflectingEvaluation-OutcomesintheMirrorofExistingEmpiri-calEvidence.ZeitschriftfürEvaluation,15(1),60–82.

Scholkmann,A.,Loyens,S.M.M.,Koch,F.,Roters,B.,Ricken,J.&Dahlgren,L.-O.(2014,April).ToUnderstandorNotToUnderstand?Or:DoesProblem-basedLearningYieldanAdvantageforDeepUnderstanding?AStudywithFirstYearStudentsinPsycholog-icalCurriculafromthreeEuropeanCountries.PaperpresentedattheAmericanEduca-tionalResearchAssociationAnnualMeeting,Philadelphia,PA.

Scholkmann,A.,Siemon,J.,Boom,K.-D.,&Knigge,M.(2017).TimeonTaskinSimulation-basedLearning.InfluenceofLearningGoalOrientationandGroupComposition.Zeit-schriftfürErziehungswissenschaft.doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0736-4.

Scholkmann,A.,Sommer,A.&Petersen,K.(2014).HochschuldidaktischeBegleitungvonLehrinnovationen:„Nicetohave“oderunentbehrlich?InD.Lenzen&S.Rupp(Eds.).Das Lehrlabor Förderung von Lehrinnovationen in der Studieneingangsphase Pro-jektstandnachzweiJahren(Bd.6,S.40–48).Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg.

Seidel,T.,Sturmer,K.,Blomberg,G.,Kobarg,M.&Schwindt,K.(2011).TeacherLearningfromAnalysisofVideotapedClassroomSituations:DoesItMakeaDifferenceWheth-erTeachersObserveTheirOwnTeachingorthatofOthers?TeachingandTeacherEdu-cation:AnInternationalJournalofResearchandStudies,27(2),259–267.

Shay, S. (2012). Educational development as a field: arewe there yet?Higher EducationResearch&Development,31(3),311–323.doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.631520

Shulman,L.S.(2000).FromMinskToPinsk:WhyAScholarshipOfTeachingAndLearning?TheJournalofScholarshipofTeachingandLearning,1(1),48–53.

Smith, K. (2008).Who Do You Think You’re Talking to? The Discourse of Learning andTeaching Strategies.Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher EducationandEducationalPlanning,56(4),395–406.

Stes,A.,Min-Leliveld,M.,Gijbels,D.&VanPetegem,P.(2010).Theimpactofinstructionaldevelopmentinhighereducation:Thestate-of-the-artoftheresearch.EducationalRe-searchReview,5(1),25–49.doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.07.001

Stolz, K. & Scholkmann, A. (in Vorbereitung). Ergebnisbericht zur DGHD-Umfrage zumWeiterbildungsstandund-bedarfvoninderHochschuldidaktikTätigen.DeutscheGe-sellschaftfürHochschuldidaktikdghd.

Sutherland,K.A. (2015).Precariousbutconnected: the rolesand identitiesofacademicdevelopers. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(3), 209–211. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2015.1066343

Tsang,E.W.K.(1997).OrganizationalLearningandtheLearningOrganization:ADichot-omyBetweenDescriptive andPrescriptiveResearch.HumanRelations,50(1), 73–89.doi:10.1177/001872679705000104

Tucker,B.&Parker,L.(2014).Inourivorytowers?Theresearch-practicegapinmanage-ment accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 44(2), 104–143. doi:10.1080/00014788.2013.798234

Urban,D.&Meister,D.M. (2010). Strategies of ProfessionalizationofAcademicDevel-opment & Pathways of Academic Developers. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung,5(4),104–123.

15 Bridgingthegap


VandenBerk,I.(2013).KommunikativeGattungenimFremdsprachenunterricht:vonderWissenschaftstheoriezurvirtuellenLernumgebungCleio.Utrecht:Univ.

VandenBerk, I., Scholkmann,A., Sommer,A.,Mayerberger,K., Linke, F.&Schmohl, T.(2015).StudienführerMasterofHigherEducation(MoHE)amHamburgerZentrumfürUniversitäres Lehren und Lernen (HUL). 6., vollst. überarbeitete Auflage. Retrievedfromwww.hul.uni-hamburg.de/lehre/mohe/mohe-studienfuehrer-15-16.pdf

VanGog,T.(2012).Timeontask.InJ.Hattie&E.M.Anderman(Eds.),Internationalguideto student achievement (S. S. 432–433). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved fromL:\ViSt\Literatur\Citavi5\Time on Task\Citavi Attachments\van Gog 2012 - Time ontask.pdf

VanHattum-Janssen,N.,Morgado,J.C.&Vieira,F.(2012).Academicdevelopmentasedu-cationalinquiry?Insightsfromestablishedpractices.InternationalJournalforAcadem-icDevelopment,17(1),33–45.doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.594511

Wildt,J.(2002).EinhochschuldidaktischerBlickaufLehrenundLernen.EinekurzeEinfüh-rungindieHochschuldidaktik.InB.Berendt,A.Fleischmann,J.Wildt,N.Schaper&B.Szczyrba(Eds.).NeuesHandbuchHochschulehre(S.GriffmarkeA1.1).

Author’snote

Anearlierversionof thismanuscripthasbeenpresentedatTheHigherEducationCon-ference(HEC)2016inAmsterdaminaKeynotesponsoredbytheGermanAssociationforAcademicDevelopment (DeutscheGesellschaft fürHochschuldidaktikdghd);partsofthetexthavesincebeensubstantiallyrevised.

Author

Dr. Antonia Scholkmann. Universität Hamburg, Fakultät Erziehungswissenschaft,Fachbereich 3: Berufliche Bildung und Lebenslanges Lernen; Email: [email protected]

Zitiervorschlag:Scholkmann,A.(2017).Bridgingthegap.Researchasapracticetolinkhighereducationresearchandeducationaldevelopment.diehochschullehre,Jahrgang3/2017,onlineunter:www.hochschullehre.org

aalborg universitet bridging the gap research as a ... · bridging the gap. research as a practice...

Documents