Abstract
Research and education are organically connected in that lectures convey the results of research, which is frequently initiated by inspiring lectures. As a result, the contents of lecture materials and research publications and the research capabilities of universities should be considered in the investigations of the relationships between research and teaching. We examine the relationship between research and teaching using automatic text analysis. In particular, we scrutinize the relatedness of the content of research papers with the content of lecture materials to investigate the association between teaching and research. We adopt topic modeling for the correlation analysis of research capabilities and the reflectiveness of research topics in lecture materials. We select the field of machine learning as a case study because the field is contemporary and because data related to teaching and research are easily accessible via the Internet. The results reveal interesting characteristics of lecture materials and research publications in the field of machine learning. The research capability of an institute is independent of the lecture materials. However, for introductory courses, teaching and research measures showed a weak negative relationship, and there is little relationship between the measures for advanced courses.
References
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289.
Barnett, R. (1992). Linking teaching and research: A critical inquiry. The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 619–636.
Barrie, S., & Ginns, P. (2007). The linking of national teaching performance indicators to improvements in teaching and learning in classrooms. Quality in Higher Education, 13(3), 275–286.
Bergstrom, C. E. (2007). Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.
Blei, D., Ng, A., & Jordan, M. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3–18.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203.
Fodor, I. K. (2002). A survey of dimension reduction techniques, LLNL technical report, UCRL-ID-148494.
Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293–305.
Friedrich, R. J., & Michalak, S. J, Jr. (1983). Why doesn’t research improve teaching? Some answers from a small liberal arts college. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(2), 145–163.
Guzella, T. S., & Caminhas, W. M. (2009). A review of machine learning approaches to spam filtering. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10206–10222.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Jensen, J. (1988). Research and teaching in the universities of Denmark: Does such an interplay really exist? Higher Education, 17(1), 17–26.
Ji, S., Xu, W., Yang, M., & Yu, K. (2012). 3D convolutional neural networks for human action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(1), 221–231.
Jin, B. H. (2006). H-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8–9.
Kononenko, I. (2001). Machine learning for medical diagnosis: History, state of the art and perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 23(1), 89–109.
Lézoray, O., Charrier, C., Cardot, H., & Lefèvre, S. (2008). Machine learning in image processing. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2008(1), 927–950.
Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2013). The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 627–639.
Mandel, M. I., Poliner, G. E., & Ellis, D. P. (2006). Support vector machine active learning for music retrieval. Multimedia Systems, 12(1), 3–13.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.
McCallum, A. (2002) MALLET: A machine learning for language toolkit.
Mimno, D. M., & McCallum, A. (2008). Topic models conditioned on arbitrary features with Dirichlet-multinomial regression. UAI, 411–418.
Mooney, C. J. (1991). Professors feel conflict between roles in teaching and research, say students are badly prepared. Chronicle of Higher Education, 37(34), 15–17.
Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 23(2), 159–171.
Oniśko, A., & Druzdzel, M. J. (2013). Impact of precision of Bayesian network parameters on accuracy of medical diagnostic systems. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 57(3), 197–206.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.
Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Association between research and teaching in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 23, 273–295.
Rushton, J. P., Murray, H. G., & Paunonen, S. V. (1983). Personality, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university professors. Scientometrics, 5, 93–116.
Safavian, S. R., & Landgrebe, D. (1991). A survey of decision tree classifier methodology. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 21(3), 660–674.
Serafin, A. G. (1992). Interrelations for teaching, research and service: The faculty satisfaction dilemma. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association, Novi, MI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 439 660).
Song, M., & Kim, M. C. (2013). RT2M: Real-time twitter trend mining system. In International conference on social intelligence and technology, College Station, Pennsylvania (SOCIETY 2013).
Zhao, W., Chellappa, R., Phillips, P. J., & Rosenfeld, A. (2003). Face recognition: A literature survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 35(4), 399–458.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported through the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), which was funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2012R1A1A2046061) and by the Ministry of Education of Korea (NRF-2012-2012S1A3A2033291).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, H., Kwak, J., Song, M. et al. Coherence analysis of research and education using topic modeling. Scientometrics 102, 1119–1137 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1453-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1453-x