Is College Teaching Quality Influenced by Research Activity of the Instructor? Dean C. Luehrs and Richard E. Brown Michigan Technolological University, Houghton, MI 49931 One commonly accepted justification for the substantial amount of resources expended on basic research in universities is that it will improve the quality of the instructors' teaching. On the other hand, some worry that the concentration of effort on research, which is rewarded more than good quality teaching, has reduced the quality of teaching in universities ( I , 2). Alimited number of studies have been done to test these opinions (I--7). Generally no correlation was found between the quality of teaching a s measured by student evaluations and research activity of the instructor a s measured by number of publications. One earlier study did appear to find significant correlation although the amount was diff~cultto evaluate since no correlation coefficient was calculated and there was no statistical test to see ifthe difference is significant (5). There has been considerable controversy in the literature a s to whether student evaluation of teaching quality is valid (1-91, but the evidence now appears to be conclusive that student evaluation, although imperfect, is not only valid and reliable but is also the most valid single way The number of publito measure quality of teaching (4,8). cations over a period of time is generally accepted a s a measure of ntsc;irch activity although one study also considered success in obtaining grants ( 5 1and mother did not specify the measure of research activity ( I ) . Since student evaluation data on a scale of 1to 5 (10)and publication activity over a five-year period were available for faculty a t Michigan Technological University (11-151,a linear regression analysis of student evaluation of overall teaching effectiveness against the number of publications by that faculty member in a five-year period was carried out to see if the pragmatic, goal-oriented nature of the students here would have any effect. Over 80% of the students involved are in a technical field such a s engineering, natural sciences, or business administration. Since the attitude of the instructor as perceived by the students has been shown to influence student evaluations of overall teaching effectiveness (41, this was also considered a s a separate variable. The evaluation by the students of the instructor's knowledge of the subject was also available. One study has found some correlation of student evaluation of knowledge with research activity (21,but generally either this has not been investigated or no relationship was found. This point was also checked in this study. Results Descriptive statistics of the four variables are given in Table 1. As indicated by comparison of the mean a n d median, the distribution of publications was skewed with 1 9 (31%)having no publications and five (8%)having 15 or more. The regression analysis of student evaluation of overall teaching effectiveness, SE, against number of publications, P, indicated a correlation coefficient of 0.20 which is not significantly different from zero a t the 80% level ofconfidence. Regression of S E against log (1 + P) did not improve the correlation.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables Overall Knowledge Attitude, A Publications. P student of subject evaluation, matter SE
Mean
3.99
4.48
4.01
4.2
Median
4.06
4.51
4.05
2.0
Stand. dev.
0.51
0.41
0.41
6.4
2.8G4.80
0-31
Range
1.964.75
2.42-5.00
The correlation of variables, Table 2, indicates some correlation of SE with perceived knowledge of the subject, K, and perceived attitude, A. Linear regression analysis indicated that these correlations were significant a t the 99.9% level of confidence. However, K did not correlate with P a t the 80% level of confidence. Table 2. Correlation of the Variables SE
K
A
Discussion This study does not support the idea that research activity, as measured by number of publications in a fiveyear period, has either a positive or negative effect on quality of teaching as measured by student evaluations of overall teaching effectiveness in undergraduate courses. This study does confirm the findings of earlier studies (41, that the attitude of the instructor, a s perceived by students, does correlate with the student evaluation of overall teaching effectiveness. While basic research by university professors has benefits to society, improvement of teaching quality in undergraduate courses does not appear to be one of them. This studv " sueeests .,., that colleges wishing to impr0j.e the quality of undergraduarc instruction would do well to attenlot to evduatc the atutude ol'~rosoecti\~e instructors toward students when interviewkg Eandidates for an open position. Methodology Over 80% of the students a t Michigan Technological University major in engineering, physical sciences, business administration, or forestry. They score well above average in mathematics, physical and social sciences, and about average in English on SAT or ACT scores (16). The lack of coincidence in time of the student evaluations and the counting of publications may appear to be a shortcoming if one expects research productivity to change Volume 69 Number 1 January 1992
35
over a period of time. However, these were the only data available. There were no obvious cases of individuals with drastically changingresearch productivity over a period of time except for those who retired during this period (and thus were not included). Other research has shown that student evaluations of a given instructor are stable over a period oftime (4). In a few cases, research productivity was available for instructors who moved or the research activity of those who retired during this period was available for their last five years. If more than one evaluation was available for a n instructor, a n average was taken. Faculty in ROTC, Humanities, and the School of Technology were not included, because i t was considered difficult to evaluate their professional accomplishments, which are not limited to refereed publications in scholarly journals. Only publications in refereed journals were counted in this study. Because of the length of time between the student evaluations and the counting of the number of publications, all the publications were the result of work done while the instructor was employed by Michigan Technological University, which makes the comparisons more uniform than if publications from workin graduate school,
36
Journal of Chemical Education
postdoctoral work, or a t a research institute were also included. Literature Cited 1 Cornwell, C. D J C h m Educ. 1974,51,155. 2. Lhskx A. S.:Shaus, M. A. J Xlghsr Educ. 1975.46.89, 3. Alearnoni. L.M.; Xmer, M. J Educ. Psyehol. 1973.64.274, 4. Marsh. H. W J. Educ. Psycho1 1984,76,707 5. Bresler, J. 8.Sci. 1968.160,164. 6. Marsh. H. W ;Overall, J. V.;Kesler. J . E d u c Psyehol.1979,71,149. 7. voeks,V. W J . HigherEduc. 1862,33,212. 8. Dowell, D. A ; Neal, d. A.J Higher Educ. 1982,53,51. 9. Siebllng B. R.: Schaff,M. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1974.51.150. 10. Michlgan k h L d e , Michigan Technological Univenity, Houghton. W ,March 10,
..
-
.
.
13. Whitfen. E. H.T.Publieations of the Faevlty and StaR, 19661987 Year. Michigan Technologleal University, Houghton. MI. 1987. 14. Whitfen. E.H.T. Publications ofthe Famlw and StaR 1981-1988 Year Miehiean
16. Rofile of New Students,Fall 1988,Michigan Technological University, Houghton,
M I 1988.
