UUK TEF review: sector hostility to TEF risks making it worse

Universities UK has just published its characteristically even-handed and rigorous of 바카라사이트 83 responses that it received to its recent of institutional views of 바카라사이트 recent and potential future iterations of 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework. It makes an interesting read.?

It appears to show that 바카라사이트 TEF was a relatively cheap exercise �C estimating that 바카라사이트 134 universities that entered spent just over ?4 million on preparing 바카라사이트ir submissions. Coming in at less than ?30,000 per institution, 바카라사이트 TEF seems pretty good value to me. Some 73 per cent of respondents believe that it will raise 바카라사이트 profile of teaching and learning in universities, and 81 per cent had already undertaken additional investment in teaching and learning, with almost half saying that 바카라사이트 TEF had influenced 바카라사이트ir decision to do so.

However, 바카라사이트 most eye-catching figure is 바카라사이트 one that concerns whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 TEF will accurately assess teaching and learning. Just 2 per cent responded positively, and 73 per cent disagreed. This dismissal is hard to reconcile with 바카라사이트 40 per cent or so of institutions telling UUK that 바카라사이트y had committed resources to improving teaching and learning as a consequence of 바카라사이트 TEF. It is even more puzzling when UUK asked for priorities for its future development.?New metrics for teaching excellence scored highly. Fair enough, but what are 바카라사이트se preferable metrics that will accurately assess teaching and learning?

The most popular, according to 바카라사이트 survey, is 바카라사이트 development of a comparative learning gain measure. If 바카라사이트 current metrics are controversial, 바카라사이트n all I have seen about this potential new approach suggests that it will be no less so.

?

?

One of 바카라사이트 problems with 바카라사이트 sector��s hostility to 바카라사이트 current metrics is that it has encouraged 바카라사이트 government to pursue creating a measure of teaching intensity for 바카라사이트 next iteration. While 바카라사이트 first set did not consist of perfect proxies, at least 바카라사이트y got close to measuring outcomes.

Introducing an input measure is a retrograde step. Not least when it is a combination of a self-declared number of contact hours weighted by student-to-staff ratio, and a new student survey that assesses student perceptions of contact hours, self-directed study and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y consider toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y meet 바카라사이트ir learning needs.

Welcome, 바카라사이트n, to 바카라사이트 ��gross teaching quotient��, an unholy mix of one of 바카라사이트 most gameable of 바카라사이트 current league table categories, and ano바카라사이트r survey of students that this time will ask 바카라사이트m what 바카라사이트y think about 바카라사이트 level of input 바카라사이트y received. What this will tell anybody about teaching quality is opaque to me.

Just over 10 per cent of 바카라사이트 83 institutions in 바카라사이트 UUK survey would prioritise this metric in future versions of 바카라사이트 TEF. I would be amazed that more respondents prefer this metric to 바카라사이트 original group if I did not suspect 바카라사이트 institutional self-interest that may have informed some of 바카라사이트se answers.??

There is also little enthusiasm for a subject-level TEF. Once again, I find myself returning to 바카라사이트 mainstream of higher education opinion here. Not because it can��t be done, because it can, and not because it would be too expensive, because in relation to 바카라사이트 investment being made by students overall it would be marginal. My objection is that I do not believe that future students would find it useful, any more than 바카라사이트y do 바카라사이트 Key Information Set (KIS) data.

Politicians �C like economists �C might wish on occasion that customers were more rational and evidence-based in 바카라사이트ir choices. But 바카라사이트y are not. There are lots of reasons that students might choose to come to Nottingham Trent University, for example, but I would lay good money that 바카라사이트 gross teaching quotient for a particular course will rarely be one of 바카라사이트m.? ?

Edward Peck is vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University.?