Skip to main content
Log in

Coherence analysis of research and education using topic modeling

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (1992). Linking teaching and research: A critical inquiry. The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 619–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C. E. (2007). Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College and Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blei, D., Ng, A., & Jordan, M. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzella, T. S., & Caminhas, W. M. (2009). A review of machine learning approaches to spam filtering. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10206–10222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. (1988). Research and teaching in the universities of Denmark: Does such an interplay really exist? Higher Education, 17(1), 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B. H. (2006). H-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kononenko, I. (2001). Machine learning for medical diagnosis: History, state of the art and perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 23(1), 89–109.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, M. I., Poliner, G. E., & Ellis, D. P. (2006). Support vector machine active learning for music retrieval. Multimedia Systems, 12(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Association between research and teaching in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 23, 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P., Murray, H. G., & Paunonen, S. V. (1983). Personality, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university professors. Scientometrics, 5, 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safavian, S. R., & Landgrebe, D. (1991). A survey of decision tree classifier methodology. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 21(3), 660–674.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang Ouk Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1453-x

Keywords

Navigation