Bundled or unbundled? A multi-text corpus-assisted discourse analysis of the relationship between teaching and research in UK universities

Creating and disseminating knowledge through research and teaching has long been regarded as the hallmark of the modern university. However, new university business models have called into question the ‘bundling’ of teaching and research, and sustained research on the relationship between teaching and research has found little evidence of an insoluble connection between the two activities. In this article, we explore the relationship between teaching and research from the perspective of universities’ institutional discourse. We use corpus-assisted discourse analysis to examine the relationship between research and teaching as presented in two sets of institutional texts currently influential in UK Higher Education: Research Excellence Framework environment statements and Teaching Excellence Framework provider submissions (a total of 2143 documents and 12,492,071 words). Our findings show that, while universities emphasise the value of research to their teaching, they do not always emphasise (or sometimes even decry) the influence of teaching on their research. We empirically evidence that, according to what universities themselves write in institutional texts, teaching and research are not always in a mutually beneficial entanglement, but often rather a one-way relationship in which research expertise and institutional prestige are used to bolster claims of teaching excellence. This has implications for the communication of both the vision and the purpose of a university in regulatory exercises and wider policy, but also speaks to the broader idea and practice of being a university in the twenty-first century.     

The effect of acceleration signal processing for head impact numeric simulations

Brain injury research in sport employs a variety of physical models equipped with accelerometers. These acceleration signals are commonly processed using filters. The purpose of this research was to determine the effect of applying filters with different cutoff frequencies to the acceleration signals used as input for finite element modeling of the brain. Signals were generated from reconstructions of concussion events from American football and ice hockey in the laboratory using a Hybrid III headform. The resulting acceleration signals were used as input for the University College Dublin Brain Trauma Model after being processed with filters. The results indicated that using a filter with a cutoff of 300 Hz or higher had little effect on the resulting strain measures. In some cases there was some effect of the filters on the peak linear (8–30g) and rotational measures (1000–4000 rad/s²), but little effect on the finite element strain result (approximately 2–6 %). The short duration and high magnitude accelerations, such as the puck impact, were most affected by the cutoff frequency of different filters.     

The Issue of Range Restriction in Bookmark Standard Setting

This article uses data from a large‐scale assessment program to illustrate the potential issue of range restriction with the Bookmark method in the context of trying to set cut scores to closely align with a set of college and career readiness benchmarks. Analyses indicated that range restriction issues existed across different response probability (RP) values and item response theory (IRT) models if one were to apply the Bookmark procedure using intact test forms. Results also suggested that range restriction may still be present if one had access to additional data from an item bank. This demonstration critically highlights challenges that may exist in some practical applications of the Bookmark method due items not being designed to cover the full range of examinee abilities.     

A Critical Look into the Beuk Standard-Setting Method

One commonly used compromise standard-setting method is the Beuk (1984) method. A key assumption of the Beuk method is that the emphasis given to the pass rate and the percent correct ratings should be proportional to the extent that the panelists agree on their ratings. However, whether the slope of Beuk line reflects the emphasis that panelists believe should be assigned to the pass rate and the percentage correct ratings has not be fully tested. In this article, I evaluate this critical assumption of the Beuk method by asking panelists to assign importance weights to their percentage correct and pass rate judgments. I show that in several cases that the emphasis suggested by the Beuk slope is noticeably different from what one would expect and is inconsistent with importance weight ratings. I also suggest two ways that the importance weights can be used to calculate alternate cut scores, and I show that one of the ways of calculating cut scores using the importance weights leads to larger potential differences in cut score estimates. I suggest that practitioners should consider collecting importance weights when the Beuk method is used for determining cut scores.