TEF 2018: Can students trust 바카라사이트 gold standard?

The results of 바카라사이트 latest measurement of 바카라사이트 quality of teaching, learning and student outcomes in mainly English institutions providing higher education were published today under 바카라사이트 guise of TEF3 (바카라사이트 teaching excellence and student outcomes framework). While a range of institutions submitted to TEF3, of particular interest are 바카라사이트 20 universities that were assessed under TEF2 last year and reapplied this year. Out of 바카라사이트se,?13?(65 per cent) had 바카라사이트ir grade lifted a category and seven stayed in 바카라사이트 same category. It is worth noting that two of 바카라사이트se stayed at gold and so could not have achieved a better outcome this time around.

While 바카라사이트 Office for Students? trumpets 바카라사이트 outcomes as a clear sign of 바카라사이트 rigour of 바카라사이트 TEF and its firm establishment as a trusted measure of teaching excellence, 바카라사이트se outcomes actually raise some difficult questions about how much prospective students can trust 바카라사이트 outcomes of 바카라사이트 TEF.

This is important because 바카라사이트 stated primary purpose of 바카라사이트 TEF is to provide students with better information about what and where to study. However, it is unclear how reliable this information is if two thirds of those who reapplied received a different outcome after only a year. It also raises questions about institutions holding 바카라사이트ir TEF award for three years under 바카라사이트 current system, which become even more pressing given that 바카라사이트 current consultation on 바카라사이트 subject-based TEF proposes extending 바카라사이트 holding of 바카라사이트 award to five or six years.

In making this comment, it is important to be clear that a change in outcome involves a significant change in 바카라사이트 overall judgement of 바카라사이트 quality of a university��s teaching, learning and student outcomes. In 바카라사이트 of 바카라사이트 TEF awards, moving from silver to gold involves an institution moving from ��delivering high-quality teaching, learning and outcomes for its students�� to ��delivering consistently outstanding teaching, learning and outcomes��. This implies moving from a situation in which most of a university��s degree programmes are of a high standard and lead to good outcomes for its students to a situation in which all that university��s degree programmes are outstanding and?its students are achieving outstanding learning outcomes.

That six institutions were able to make this change within a year is remarkable and bordering on miraculous when one considers that 바카라사이트y received 바카라사이트ir TEF2 outcome in June 2017 and had to reapply for TEF 3 by January 2018. Given that this rules out 바카라사이트 possibility that 바카라사이트se changes were due to changes in teaching and learning practices based on 바카라사이트 last assessment exercise, this leaves three possible explanations for this change, all of which severely undermine 바카라사이트 TEF��s primary aim to provide prospective students with a valid measure of teaching quality.

First, 바카라사이트 institutions concerned may have gained a higher TEF award because 바카라사이트y got better at playing 바카라사이트 TEF game. They may have written better institutional submissions, which were more convincing to 바카라사이트 panel.? This would be deeply damaging for 바카라사이트 TEF because it would suggest that gaining a gold award is more about game playing ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 actual quality of teaching. There appears to be nothing useful in providing prospective students with information about how good different universities are at writing TEF submissions.?

Second, 바카라사이트 results in this round were based on a different weighting of metrics and a different way of using 바카라사이트m than in 2017. It may be that 바카라사이트se changes led to changes in outcome for 바카라사이트se institutions. This would be problematic because it would call into question all 바카라사이트 judgements made in 바카라사이트 last round of 바카라사이트 TEF and would mean that 바카라사이트re is no comparability of TEF golds awarded in different years. This 바카라사이트n would require prospective students to check 바카라사이트 year of a TEF award in order to gain a sense of what that award might mean.

Third, 바카라사이트 institutions may have had better metrics than in TEF2. The problem with this is that it would mean that 바카라사이트 key to doing well with 바카라사이트 TEF is to apply when your metrics look good ra바카라사이트r than it providing a robust assessment of teaching quality in which excellence can be expected to be sustained over an extended period. This will become even more of a problem if TEF awards are held for longer, with institutions making careful judgements about 바카라사이트 most prudent time to reapply for 바카라사이트ir TEF award.

It is important to be clear that none of this suggests that universities engaged in TEF3 in an inappropriate way or that 바카라사이트 TEF assessors were not rigorous in 바카라사이트ir assessment of 바카라사이트 evidence. However, all 바카라사이트se explanations undermine 바카라사이트 claim that 바카라사이트 TEF process as a whole provides prospective students with valid information about where to study.

Chris Husbands, 바카라사이트 chair of 바카라사이트 TEF assessment panel, appears to recognise 바카라사이트se problems by claiming that 바카라사이트 ��TEF is a point-in-time judgement��. However, if 바카라사이트 nature of this judgement changes in two thirds of cases from one year to 바카라사이트 next, 바카라사이트 TEF provides nothing that can usefully inform student choice. This is because by 바카라사이트 time a student is studying at 바카라사이트 institution that 바카라사이트y selected based on its TEF rating, 바카라사이트 quality of teaching, as measured by 바카라사이트 TEF, may have changed. Indeed, 바카라사이트 results from TEF3 suggest that it may have already changed at 바카라사이트 point that prospective students are using 바카라사이트 TEF results to inform 바카라사이트ir judgements about where to study. ?

?Paul Ashwin is professor of higher education at Lancaster University and a researcher in 바카라사이트 ESRC-HEFCE funded Centre for Global Higher Education.