View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Investigation into Higher Education Student and Lecturer Views on Research Publication and Their Interest in the Production of a College Partnership Science Journal

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Investigation into Higher Education Student and Lecturer Views on Research Publication and Their Interest in the Production of a College Partnership Science Journal
Language: English
Authors: Schofield, C., Burton, F. L.
Source: Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2015 52(3):265-276.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Postsecondary Education
Higher Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Continuing Education, Postsecondary Education, Higher Education, Science Education, College Students, Student Attitudes, Scholarship, Student Research, Student Publications, Partnerships in Education, Writing for Publication, Credibility, Student Motivation, Research Opportunities, Questionnaires, Focus Groups, Journal Articles, Interviews, Qualitative Research
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.808405
ISSN: 1470-3297
Abstract: The primary aim of this research was to investigate students' views of using published research and their attitudes towards the research activities of their lecturers. Although this has been examined often in university settings the focus here was on science students undertaking foundation degrees in Further Education Colleges (FECs). This was done through open question questionnaires at three FECs in one college partnership. A secondary aim was to examine the feasibility of developing a journal for the college partnership which would enable staff and students to submit manuscripts. Attitudes were sought through homogeneous focus groups with science students and staff at colleges within one college partnership. Lecturers and students showed strong support for the proposal. Students indicated that lecturers who had published would be seen as more credible and would link their research activity to the learning experience more effectively. Students believed that the possibility of publishing their work in such a journal would be a wonderful opportunity which would make them work harder. Staff saw the journal as an opportunity to publish work they had undertaken for postgraduate qualifications and encourage them to seek other research opportunities. It now needs strategic investigation regarding the practicalities of producing such a journal.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 25
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1055732
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG0wZqNx-ThmMYF2zNg2kx5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDATsoU5j55lu5Kwe6gIBEICBm_M5EGHFBypL5MDO1cFrNmHjJeECyRLfJtS6jb-JzUnH4IttExWO6rCE0ujDStp3HkCxW8jvD-2d-WvAH_PDXrP9BVn8dhJ5CY_KZY-up8PxX8IgfhrGOho9VQefWMlU2T83H1kH5BgNgy7DWg8A7-i4H7Fky_VnVV_TV71NuN8Y1nl4GVzAmY11-gTQgSJ68W1gfoSLbAwlHouJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0101714227;hzj01jun.15;2019Feb27.13:05;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0101714227-1">An investigation into higher education student and lecturer views on research publication and their interest in the production of a college partnership science journal. </title> <p>The primary aim of this research was to investigate students' views of using published research and their attitudes towards the research activities of their lecturers. Although this has been examined often in university settings the focus here was on science students undertaking foundation degrees in Further Education Colleges (FECs). This was done through open question questionnaires at three FECs in one college partnership. A secondary aim was to examine the feasibility of developing a journal for the college partnership which would enable staff and students to submit manuscripts. Attitudes were sought through homogeneous focus groups with science students and staff at colleges within one college partnership. Lecturers and students showed strong support for the proposal. Students indicated that lecturers who had published would be seen as more credible and would link their research activity to the learning experience more effectively. Students believed that the possibility of publishing their work in such a journal would be a wonderful opportunity which would make them work harder. Staff saw the journal as an opportunity to publish work they had undertaken for postgraduate qualifications and encourage them to seek other research opportunities. It now needs strategic investigation regarding the practicalities of producing such a journal.</p> <p>Keywords: HE in FE; research; scholarly activity; student perception; publication</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-2">Introduction</hd> <p>There is a vast amount of literature available on the role research plays within Higher Education (HE); from the impact research has on a lecturer's career (Drennan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]), and the role research plays in teaching (Marsh & Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]) to the impact of research on the student experience (Lindsay, Breen, & Jenkins, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]). What has not been investigated in any detail is how this relates to the experiences of students and staff in Further Education Colleges (FECs) where HE courses, such as Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) and Foundation Degrees (Fds), have been delivered for over a decade.</p> <p>The recent changes to HE funding in the UK and the application of market forces to student fees (BIS, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]) increases the need to attract and retain students to ensure course viability through positive student experiences. This study aims to explore attitudes to, and experiences of, research activity within the HE in FE sector, and to identify whether the development of a college partnership journal would be seen as beneficial and supported by students and staff alike.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-3">The role of research within HE</hd> <p>Boyer ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]) viewed scholarship as an amalgamation of four activities: the scholarship of discovery (undertaking research), the scholarship of <emph>teaching</emph> (transmission of knowledge), the scholarship of <emph>integration</emph> (synthesis of information) and the scholarship of <emph>application</emph> (applying theory in real world settings). The scholarship of discovery, or research, is at the heart of the university system where its role is acknowledged as fundamental to the long-term prosperity of the UK though innovation and productivity (DfES, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]). So if research is fundamental in HE what role should it play in FECs that deliver HE courses? Unlike their colleagues in universities, FE lecturers are not included in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]) and therefore have different conditions of service (LSIS, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]). The resultant cultures that emerge from these contractual differences vary in the form and emphasis of scholarship (Feather, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]). In FECs the focus is on the scholarship of teaching rather than discovery (BIS, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>]). However this does not mean that FE lecturers are not undertaking discipline-based or pedagogic research, although NIACE ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref11">21</reflink>]) indicate that the opportunity for staff in FECs to engage in scholarly activity other than teaching is considerably inferior to their colleagues in HEIs, as many FE lecturers do not have allocated research time (Feather, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]) or management support (Turner, McKenzie, & Stone, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-4">Students' perceptions of research</hd> <p>Although research is vital from a university funding perspective it is not the primary concern of students when applying to universities, where their awareness of research increases throughout their studies (Healey, Jordan, Pell, & Short, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]). Students' attitudes to their lecturer's research is generally seen as positive, where research-active staff are perceived as more enthusiastic, better research supervisors, having knowledge currency and heightened credibility (Jenkins, Blackman, Lindsay, & Paton-Saltzberg, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]), increasing student's understanding and stimulating enthusiasm (Breen & Lindsay, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]; Healey et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]). Postgraduate students concluding that their learning was enhanced by their lecturers' research (Lindsay et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]). However, not all students experience a positive relationship between the two. Studies have found that over 10% of students feel that research-active lecturers had a negative impact on their studies (Healey et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]), a figure which decreased proportionately in the less research-active institutions (Breen & Lindsay, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]). The negative effects perceived by students were the reduction in availability of research-active staff (Healey et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]), although this was found to be less of an issue with postgraduate students (Lindsay et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-5">Teaching-research nexus</hd> <p>Research and teaching do not need to be separate, but may be integrated for a more enriched experience through the teaching-research nexus (Healey, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]). Healey suggests that research can be applied to teaching by the integration of two different dimensions; either through its <emph>products</emph> as delivered in subject-based lectures by discussion of theory and application; or the <emph>process</emph> of research through the study of methodology. How students interact with the material informs Healey's second dimension; either through passive receipt, such as lecture-based delivery, or active engagement through inquiry-based learning. These dimensions are integrated into the curriculum in different ways (Healey, Blumhof, & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]) such as students producing research proposals or analysing data supplied by their lecturers, through to more vocational methods such as work-based learning and dissertation modules (Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Teaching-research nexus (Healey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>], p. 70).</p> <p>Students who have experienced the teaching-research nexus suggest that the independent approach to learning motivates them, allowing them a deeper understanding (Levy & Petrulis, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]) through the challenges of their involvement in research (Robertson & Blackler, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]), enhancing the quality of their education and being helpful to their future career (Ball & Mohamed, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-6">Student publications</hd> <p>It could be argued that if we are to engage students in research simulations such as projects and dissertations, then why not complete the process by encouraging the dissemination of findings through conference presentations and publication? Such a suggestion has met with highly differing views. Gilbert ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]) argues that it is an unnecessary activity for undergraduates as they will not have reached the academic level to publish in a real journal. In contrast many institutions have created their own in-house journals, for example the PennScience publication (Morris, Zheng, Kulp, Bokreta, & Santiago-Aviles, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]) where students run the journal on a team-based model, from fundraising and publicity to editing and production. Feedback from previous student team members has highlighted feelings of prestigious achievement; 35% felt it had helped them achieve a job or college place, and 78% continued to research thereafter. Another project employing student and lecturer collaboration in the production of Warwick University's undergraduate journal <emph>Reinvention</emph>, a multi-disciplinarily, biannual, open access publication where quality is assured through a double-blind peer review process (Metcalfe, Gibson, & Lambert, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]). Its remit, as with PennScience, is to offer a meaningful platform for students to disseminate their work if they choose and those who have contributed to Reinvention claim that the experience has increased their confidence and filled them with pride (Metcalfe et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Having responded to the critique that students do not have the skills required for full publication in reputable journals, Gilbert ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]) has other reservations; he believes that undergraduate journals create extra stress for students and staff, although it could be argued that these issues are easily managed with a change of perspective. If project work is incorporated into the curriculum then there is no greater workload for students to manage, and as long as submission of manuscripts is not mandatory, then it is up to the individual student as to whether they engage in the whole process. Those students who have ambitions to become researchers are more likely to engage in the opportunity and therefore acquire skills and experience vital for their future career. With respect to staff feeling under pressure to be credited with supervisee's publications, it is simply a matter of institutions ensuring that this is not a staff requirement.</p> <p>It seems that there may be many advantages to offering opportunities to students to acquire a full range of professional skills, but in order to decide whether the development of a college partnership journal is feasible it is essential to establish from those who would potentially be involved whether it is an opportunity they would seek to maximise. The purpose of this study is to establish what student views are on the research activity of academic staff and students, and whether they would embrace a college partnership journal.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-7">Study 1 – Student perception of research active lecturers</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101714227-8">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101714227-9">Participants</hd> <p>Data were collected from 45 science-based foundation degree students from three colleges within one partnership. The partnership has been franchising courses to over eighteen FECs for over a decade.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-10">Design</hd> <p>In order to gather student perceptions of using research journals and their views on research activity of their lecturers, an open question survey was utilised; twelve open questions were used to allow respondents to explain their use and experiences of journal articles. The first section explored how journal articles are used within the student's studies and how this has affected them. The second section examined their awareness of the work that their lecturers do outside of the classroom with regards to research and publication and what impact research activity would have on their perceptions of their lecturers. The final section investigated what student views were on opportunities to publish their own work in a colleges' partnership journal, and their perception of the value of such a publication. Responses to this section were through a four-point Likert scale anchored at 1, <emph>not at all interested</emph>, through to 4 <emph>very interested</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>Of the qualitative responses, section one was coded for emerging themes, section two was coded based on the themes found by Lindsay et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]), those being knowledge currency, credibility enhancement, competence in supervision, enthusiasm and the relation of research to teaching. Quantitative data from section three were analysed using SPSS.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101714227-13">Use of journal articles</hd> <p>Students indicated that they used journal articles to enhance their knowledge and understanding and valued the currency of such sources. Articles were used by lecturers in class to show the findings of studies to reinforce the point being made.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-14">Awareness of lecturers' scholarly activity</hd> <p>With respect to their lecturers' scholarly activity, 55% of students were unaware of whether their lecturers were currently involved in research, and 71% were unaware of whether their lecturers had published in any form. This suggests that there is more of an awareness of research activity than dissemination, although 78% of students claimed that they would like to read any articles published by their lecturers.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-15">Impact of lecturers' scholarly activity</hd> <p>As can be seen in Figure 2, the most important impact of being research active in the view of the students is the increase in that lecturer's credibility, although nearly one fifth believe that such activity would have no impact on their perception of their lecturers.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 Student perception of research active lecturers.</p> <p>When it comes to the impact that students feel this scholarly activity may have on their own studies, as can be seen in Figure 3, just over one third believed that they would benefit from the relationship between the lecturer's research and their learning experience, with just under one third believing that the lecturer would have knowledge currency as a result. Fifteen per cent believe that lecturer scholarly activity would have no impact on their studies.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 The impact that research active lecturers would have on their studies.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-16">Desire to publish</hd> <p>Students' awareness of their lecturers level of research activity had no significant impact on their own desire to publish in either a university publication (<emph>U</emph> = 154.5, <emph>N</emph><subs>1</subs> = 21, <emph>N</emph><subs>2</subs> = 19, <emph>p </emph>= .181, 2-tailed) or a partnership publication (<emph>U</emph> = 147, <emph>N</emph><subs>1</subs> = 22, <emph>N</emph><subs>2</subs> = 19, <emph>p </emph>= .073, 2-tailed), nor did their knowledge as to whether any of their lecturers had published work affect their desire to publish in either publication (university: <emph>U</emph> = 52.5, <emph>N</emph><subs>1</subs> = 28, <emph>N</emph><subs>2</subs> = 6, <emph>p </emph>= .113, 2-tailed; partnership: <emph>U</emph> = 55.5, <emph>N</emph><subs>1</subs> = 29, <emph>N</emph><subs>2</subs> = 6, <emph>p </emph>= .126, 2-tailed).</p> <p>With respect to colleagues publishing, 87% of students claimed that they would value the work if it were published in a peer-reviewed journal with 57% somewhat interested in finding out more about being part of a college partnership journal.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-17">Study 2 – Staff and Students' views of a college partnership science journal</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101714227-18">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101714227-19">Participants</hd> <p>Two student focus groups and one individual interview were conducted at different colleges within the partnership. In total eleven students were interviewed with ages ranging from 19 to 46 (<emph>M</emph> = 27.8, SD = 7.9). Two staff focus groups were conducted incorporating seven staff members. All HE science lecturers at the colleges were invited to attend. Of those who took part only two had undertaken research in the past, and none were currently doing so outside of a professional qualification (Tables12).</p> <p>Table 1. Student participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Gender</td><td>Age</td><td>Course</td><td>Level</td><td>Focus group</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>24</td><td>Psychology</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>19</td><td>Psychology</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>27</td><td>Psychology</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td>30</td><td>Psychology</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>19</td><td>Exercise science and fitness</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>46</td><td>Exercise science and fitness</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>32</td><td>Exercise science and fitness</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>35</td><td>Exercise science and fitness</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td>21</td><td>Exercise science and fitness</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td>28</td><td>Exercise science and fitness</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>25</td><td>Marine science</td><td>5</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Staff participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Gender</td><td>Course</td><td>Topic</td><td>Focus group</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>Fd Marine Science</td><td>Business</td><td>1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td>Fd Marine Science</td><td>Sociology</td><td>1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>Fd Exercise science</td><td>Health & Nutrition</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Fd Outdoor education</td><td>Exercise prescription</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>Fd Bioscience</td><td>Cell biology</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td>Fd Bioscience</td><td>Genetics</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Fd Animal science</td><td>Lab techniques research project</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>Fd Health care practise</td><td>Research</td><td>2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Ethics</td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td>Learning resource assistant</td><td>Research skills</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0101714227-20">Design</hd> <p>In order to explore the thoughts and feelings of staff and students with regards to the introduction of a college partnership science journal, stimulus-driven focus groups were conducted. The stimuli used to elicit conversations were a selection of journals including <emph>Qualitative Research Methods in Sport</emph>, a journal published by the University of Central Lancashire where student's work is published with lecturer supervision.</p> <p>A semi-structured interview was designed that could be applied to both students and staff alike. The interview schedule commenced with discussion of the stimulus journals, with respect to who they felt published work in such publications, this then allowed a focus on the student journal. They were then encouraged to explore the issues surrounding student followed by staff publication, their benefits and limitations, ending with their thoughts about being part of an editorial board.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-21">Procedure</hd> <p>Interviewees were welcomed and asked to look through a selection of journals for five minutes prior to the start of the focus group. Discussion of each point continued until the researcher felt that the point had been exhausted before moving onto the next section. The same format was adhered to for both student and staff focus groups. Due to the varied group sizes the student focus groups took from 7 to 20 min, and the lecturer focus groups took 25 min.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-22">Data analysis</hd> <p>Interviews were transcribed verbatim producing a total of 14 pages from the student interviews and 21 pages from the staff interviews. The transcriptions were analysed thematically for emerging themes.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-23">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101714227-24">Perceptions of who publishes</hd> <p>Students thought that those who publish in journals were either academics or from commerce with a view to either disseminating important findings or making others aware of the benefits of their products with respect to the commercial contributors. The majority of students felt that lecturers published as part of their job and it was commonly believed that contributors were paid for their publications. Having been advised that this was not the case students were outraged and were curious as to why they would submit manuscripts without payment and even thought that this was exploitation, 'but if they [the publishers] make money out of it I think you should be paid' (student). Only one student was aware that students also publish, and all were intrigued by the student journal, as they had not differentiated it from the professional journals.</p> <p>The response from the lecturer interviews were more informed, with several of them having published themselves or worked with staff who had published. There was an awareness of a few instances where students from their institutions had published, but this tended to be under the guidance of staff who were used to publishing, and thus had the confidence to encourage them. When asked why they had not attempted publication themselves the response tended to be that it had not occurred to them before, this is something that 'other' people do.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-25">Students' thoughts on publishing</hd> <p>Lecturers and students were all positively disposed towards the idea of students publishing. There were several reasons that emerged as to why students felt it important that other students should publish. The themes centred on issues of identification and accessibility. They felt that they could identify with the producers of this knowledge as they were working at the same level in their educational career, 'But it's an attainable level of understanding isn't it? Because they're working at the same level as us, or a bit above us' (student). This equality of level of study was seen as important as they could identify with the authors and could therefore use their work as a guideline to readers like themselves, 'have a look and see how they've done it and maybe use it as a bit of a guideline you know, the same process' (student).</p> <p>They also saw student publications as being more accessible in terms of the levels of academic language employed; complex terminology was felt to be a barrier to their comprehension of some research articles. These sentiments were also observed by their lecturers who acknowledge that the students sometimes struggle with the complex language; 'so it can be quite difficult to access, so this could be an ideal stepping stone where their current level of understanding is, and being able to understand fully proper academic articles' (lecturer). This said, the more accessible language did not equate to a dumbing-down of the quality of the work. It became evident that credibility of the research was very important to the students, and the fact the student articles were reviewed was vital in the credibility process, as one student claimed 'I think is a good idea, because it's been through the board'.</p> <p>The students believed it would be a useful part of their skills development. Any feedback received from an editorial review board was seen as helpful regardless of whether it would lead to eventual publication, and some indicated that they might work harder on assignments if publication was a possibility, a factor also predicted by several lecturers, although the lecturers also balanced the motivating factors with concerns over how students might handle rejection.</p> <p>Both students and staff referred to the privacy of assessment, the fact that students may produce excellent work that is only ever seen by themselves and the assessor was seen as a failure to disseminate; a restriction of knowledge, 'so both the lecturers and students, what they actually put a lot of time and effort into and maybe what they're passionately interested in is actually worth showing somebody else' (lecturer).</p> <p>The academic skills acquired were not the only benefits perceived, a common response was the confidence that the process would afford them, especially with respect to transiting to level 6 courses from foundation degrees, as one level 5 student commented 'Because you feel good about that and it would give you the confidence to go on and write a 9000 word dissertation'.</p> <p>Overall the most unanimous response was the feelings of pride that the students felt they would experience. Pride at being able to show their families the product of their work in print, but also pride at their contribution to the body of knowledge, and the fact that others might cite them. They were very focused on the print aspect, and the omnipresent impact of that, through time and space, one student considering how far away the readers of their work might be, 'even in places like America'.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-26">Lecturers' thoughts on publishing</hd> <p>The staff involved in the focus groups were excited about the prospect of publishing for a range of reasons. Initially there was discussion of the skills that they would acquire from the process and the currency of engagement in contemporary literature, but they saw advantages beyond this with a more political perspective. Research-active lecturers were seen as essential in the move towards more provision of level 6 courses in the colleges, so the research activity was seen as a CPD opportunity, but also a way of proving to the awarding body that they are capable of delivery at level 6 and contentiously a way to 'justify the types of fees we're going to charge'.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-27">Views on a college partnership science journal</hd> <p>The positive view of lecturers being research active was extended to the possibility of developing a college partnership journal. The staff saw this as a stepping stone from which they could build confidence;</p> <p>And I think it will open the door, because a lot of people who perhaps haven't published work before, you know, think it's massive, but this could be the stepping stone, and people might think perhaps I can do this so perhaps I'll submit it to another journal next time. (lecturer)</p> <p>The main concern from the lecturers was the issue of time; to supervise, to conduct their own research, and to be part of a review or editorial board. There were worries that they could 'spend the summer re-editing their stuff ready for publication' and they stated that 'I don't think it's anything that people could have on top of their workload already', while also acknowledging the economic arguments that surround the issue, that 'if we're not teaching that is costing the college'. After more discussion the lecturers who were concerned about time saw the possibilities in a more positive light; 'I think there is scope for us to be able to review. We found time to write to programmes, we do seem to find time'.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-28">Discussion</hd> <p>These studies sought to establish what views HE students in FE colleges have on the research activity conducted by their lecturers and what views the students and staff have on the opportunity to publish their work in a college partnership science journal.</p> <p>As suggested by NIACE ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]) FEC lecturers have limited opportunities to undertake research when compared to the research activity of their colleagues in HEIs, but this does not reflect the desires of the lecturers, as all were keen to be afforded such opportunities. In this study, very few students were aware of whether their lecturers had published, but thought that it would greatly enhance the credibility of the lecturers if they had published, as well as offering more skilled advice to aid student learning, findings which reflect those of Lindsay et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]). Staff were also quite eager to enter into the research process for a range of reasons; educational, skills development and political. It therefore seems that this is something that all parties want which would lead to a variety of positive outcomes.</p> <p>Overall the respondents were very positive about the prospect of being involved with a college partnership journal. There were no negative views expressed with regards to students publishing as extolled by Gilbert ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]), both students and staff seeing it as the next set of skills that could be developed. The only real concern was shown by staff regarding time to support the project, but they did not concern themselves with the institutional view of their ability if their students did not become published as Gilbert ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]) warned, possibly due to the different cultures between HEIs and FECs.</p> <p>It appears that most students use journals to support their learning but there was a lack of confidence in their comprehension of some of the more complex language. The possibility of becoming more actively involved may enhance their engagement with the level of academic writing whilst also offering an introduction to level 4 students through reading peer articles. The process may also change their views on assessment, where the potential publication of their work may make them work harder to reach a wider audience.</p> <p>This study offers a broad view of student perceptions of research, a view that may be enhanced by semi-structured interviewing in future. It must also be considered that this is the view of a sample of science students and lecturers from three FECs, and may not necessarily reflect those views and experiences from other disciplines or from other types of institutions or indeed the other 216 FECs in England.</p> <p>To conclude it appears that the production of a college partnership journal is an exciting prospect to staff and students. The next stage is to convince senior management in FECs of the benefits of the journal to their institutions and thus encourage their support of the venture.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-29">Notes on contributors</hd> <p>C. Schofield is a lecturer in sport psychology at Truro College campus. Over the last decade she has delivered on all of the Sport Science Degrees offered through Truro College and has developed the HND Applied Psychology which has been running for ten years.</p> <p>F.L. Burton is a lecturer in Human Physiology at the University of Plymouth. Having received her PhD in Exercise Science from the University of Glasgow she is now a lecturer at the University of Plymouth where she continues to research and teach within exercise physiology and physical activity for health.</p> <hd id="AN0101714227-30">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This study was supported by a HELP CETL Mini Teaching Fellowship.</p> <ref id="AN0101714227-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. & Mohamed, M. (2010). Insights on how students perceive the research-teaching nexus: A case study of hospitality management students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 9, 89–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref4" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> BIS (2011). Higher education: Students at the heart of the system. London: HMSO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> BIS (2012). Understanding higher education in further education colleges. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Breen, R. & Lindsay, R. (1999). Academic research and student motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 242, 75–93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> DfES (2003). The future of higher education. Norwich: HMSO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Drennan, L. T. (2001). Quality assessment and the tension between teaching and research. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 167–178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Feather, D. (2011a). Culture of HE in FE – Exclave or enclave? Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 16, 15–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Feather, D. (2011b). Oh to be a scholar – An HE in FE perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36, 243–261.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, S. F. (2004). Should students be encouraged to publish their research in student-run publications? A case against undergraduate-only journal publications. Cell Biology Education, 3, 22–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healey, M. (2005a). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 183–201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healey, M. (2005b). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 67–78). Buckingham: Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healey, M., Blumhof, J., & Thomas, N. (2003). The research teaching nexus in geography, earth and environmental sciences. Planet, 11, 5–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healey, M., Jordan, F., Pell, B., & Short, C. (2010). The research–teaching nexus: A case study of students' awareness, experiences and perceptions of research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47, 235–246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R., & Paton-Saltzberg, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Student perspectives and policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 127–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, P. & Petrulis, R. (2011). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37, 85–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsay, R., Breen, R., & Jenkins, A. (2002). Academic research and teaching quality: The views of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 309–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LSIS (2009). Higher education in further education colleges (HE in FECs): Brief guide for governors and clerks in further education colleges. Coventry: Learning & Skills Improvement Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. & Hattie, J. (2002). The relationship between productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 603–641.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metcalfe, D., Gibson, C., & Lambert, C. (2010). A collaborative foray into undergraduate publishing. In S. Little (Ed.), Staff-student partnerships in higher education (pp. 168–184). London: Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NIACE (2003). The HE in FE training and support programme. Leicester: HEFCE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, A. C., Zheng, R., Kulp, A., Bokreta, M. K., & Santiago-Aviles, J. (2006, October). The PennScience experience: Lessons learned working on an undergraduate research journal. 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1056–1061). San Diego CA. S4D.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RAE. (2008). Research assessment exercise. Retrieved June 12, 2011, from <ulink href="http://www.rae.ac.uk/">http://www.rae.ac.uk/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, J. & Blackler, G. (2006). Students' experiences of learning in a research environment. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, 215–229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, R., McKenzie, L., & Stone, M. (2009). 'Square peg – Round hole': The emerging professional identities of HE in FE lecturers working in a partner college network in south-west England. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 14, 355–368.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By C. Schofield and F.L. Burton</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1055732
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Investigation into Higher Education Student and Lecturer Views on Research Publication and Their Interest in the Production of a College Partnership Science Journal
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schofield%2C+C%2E%22">Schofield, C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burton%2C+F%2E+L%2E%22">Burton, F. L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovations+in+Education+and+Teaching+International%22"><i>Innovations in Education and Teaching International</i></searchLink>. 2015 52(3):265-276.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Continuing+Education%22">Continuing Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarship%22">Scholarship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Research%22">Student Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Publications%22">Student Publications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+for+Publication%22">Writing for Publication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Credibility%22">Credibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Opportunities%22">Research Opportunities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Focus+Groups%22">Focus Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/14703297.2013.808405
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1470-3297
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The primary aim of this research was to investigate students' views of using published research and their attitudes towards the research activities of their lecturers. Although this has been examined often in university settings the focus here was on science students undertaking foundation degrees in Further Education Colleges (FECs). This was done through open question questionnaires at three FECs in one college partnership. A secondary aim was to examine the feasibility of developing a journal for the college partnership which would enable staff and students to submit manuscripts. Attitudes were sought through homogeneous focus groups with science students and staff at colleges within one college partnership. Lecturers and students showed strong support for the proposal. Students indicated that lecturers who had published would be seen as more credible and would link their research activity to the learning experience more effectively. Students believed that the possibility of publishing their work in such a journal would be a wonderful opportunity which would make them work harder. Staff saw the journal as an opportunity to publish work they had undertaken for postgraduate qualifications and encourage them to seek other research opportunities. It now needs strategic investigation regarding the practicalities of producing such a journal.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 25
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1055732
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1055732
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/14703297.2013.808405
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 265
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Continuing Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Postsecondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Publications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing for Publication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Credibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Opportunities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Focus Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Investigation into Higher Education Student and Lecturer Views on Research Publication and Their Interest in the Production of a College Partnership Science Journal
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schofield, C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burton, F. L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1470-3297
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovations in Education and Teaching International
              Type: main
ResultId 1