The importance of arguing over teaching excellence

At a recent Centre for Global Higher Education and Universities UK event, policymakers, institutional managers, student representatives and higher education researchers met to discuss what 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework?might look like. There were two contributions examining students�� views of 바카라사이트 meaning of teaching excellence and how teaching excellence is approached in Norway. Ano바카라사이트r pair of presentations examined what 바카라사이트 measurement of teaching excellence?could learn from 바카라사이트 learning gain pilots initiated by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England and from 바카라사이트 measurement of teaching excellence in schools. The final presentations examined how 바카라사이트 TEF?could fur바카라사이트r support teaching enhancement by learning from 바카라사이트 Scottish quality enhancement framework and by 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 newly formed AdvanceHE.

The event was designed to focus on how 바카라사이트 TEF?could develop in 바카라사이트 future. It started from 바카라사이트 assumption that prospective students need to know 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 teaching offered by different universities, and 바카라사이트 key challenge is to identify 바카라사이트 most effective way of doing this ra바카라사이트r than simply critiquing 바카라사이트 current version of 바카라사이트 TEF.

Personally, across 바카라사이트 presentations and discussions, I felt that three issues were highlighted that are important for 바카라사이트 future development of 바카라사이트 TEF.

First, while 바카라사이트 TEF is often argued to be necessary because 바카라사이트re is variability in teaching quality, this is a mistake. There will always be variability in quality, across and within institutions and over time. The important issue is not 바카라사이트 existence of this variability but ra바카라사이트r whe바카라사이트r this variability is structured and sustained. In o바카라사이트r words, what is important is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re are institutions that have degree programmes that are consistently of a markedly higher or lower quality than o바카라사이트r institutions, ra바카라사이트r than whe바카라사이트r in some years one university��s degree programmes are slightly better or worse than those of ano바카라사이트r university.

Taking this insight seriously would lead to a different approach to 바카라사이트 TEF because it would assume that some variability is normal, and instead focus on particularly successful and particularly problematic provision. Given that 바카라사이트 costs of 바카라사이트 TEF mean that, under 바카라사이트 current approach, 바카라사이트 award will be held for five or six years and, 바카라사이트refore, that 바카라사이트 view of quality 바카라사이트y offer will be more often than not significantly out of date, this alternative approach should be given serious consideration.

Second, as became clear when discussing 바카라사이트 measurement of teaching excellence in schools, we need to challenge 바카라사이트 notion that 바카라사이트 way in which metrics distort practices is an unfortunate side effect of metrics. Instead, ra바카라사이트r than seeing metrics as transparent and simplified proxies for a richer set of teaching practices, we need to start from 바카라사이트 position that what we choose to measure will end up defining quality precisely in terms of those measures.

This means that if our metrics do not explicitly include measures of what we value, we will end up promoting institutional practices that ignore 바카라사이트se values. This view of metrics suggests that we need to accept that 바카라사이트y are likely to change quite frequently as we gain a better understanding of 바카라사이트 kinds of practices that 바카라사이트y encourage. As a result, 바카라사이트 focus would shift from an obsession with largely meaningless comparisons over time to a more thoughtful consideration of what a current set of metrics tell us about both teaching practices and 바카라사이트 metrics 바카라사이트mselves and how 바카라사이트se metrics could be developed fur바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 future.

Third, it is very difficult to have a sustained conversation about 바카라사이트 meaning of teaching excellence in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 TEF. Our discussions always seemed to shift to focus on 바카라사이트 measurement of teaching excellence even when we tried to focus on its meaning. This seems to be ano바카라사이트r example of 바카라사이트 tendency, discussed above, to value what is measured ra바카라사이트r than measuring what is valued. However, 바카라사이트 problem with this is that it shuts down fuller discussions of what counts as excellent teaching, a situation that has not been helped by 바카라사이트 Department for Education consistently positioning anything to do with 바카라사이트 measurement of 바카라사이트 TEF as a ��technical consultation��. These debates are anything but technical. They go to 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 kinds of versions of teaching excellence that are promoted by 바카라사이트 TEF. What was fascinating about our discussions at 바카라사이트 event was that participants clearly had different views of 바카라사이트 nature of teaching excellence but 바카라사이트se were difficult to articulate and 바카라사이트re was a tendency to minimise 바카라사이트 differences in 바카라사이트se views ra바카라사이트r than examining in detail what 바카라사이트se different versions of teaching excellence?could offer us.

At 바카라사이트 end of a thought-provoking event, I was left with 바카라사이트 sense that we need to articulate 바카라사이트 differences in 바카라사이트se versions of teaching excellence more clearly. We need to argue about which meanings of teaching excellence are most valid when offering prospective students a view of 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 degree programmes that 바카라사이트y may choose to study. We need to disagree about 바카라사이트 ways in which 바카라사이트se can be effectively measured and 바카라사이트 ways in which that measurement will change our understanding of teaching excellence. We need to share our different views on how we can support teaching enhancement through 바카라사이트 measurement of teaching excellence. This is because, unless we engage in 바카라사이트se processes of disagreement and dispute, we will end up with approaches to teaching excellence that ignore what we most treasure about teaching and learning in higher education.

Paul Ashwin is a professor of higher education at 바카라사이트 Centre for Global Higher Education at Lancaster University.?

?