If 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework is worth doing, it¡¯s worth doing well

One of Lord Willetts¡¯ early acts as minister for universities and science was to delay 바카라사이트 research excellence framework by a year. At 바카라사이트 time, 바카라사이트 notion of rewarding research impact was hotly contested and Lord Willetts wanted to ensure that 바카라사이트 debate had time to fully play out before implementing 바카라사이트 new approach.

It was a clever move, designed to demonstrate to 바카라사이트 higher education sector that here was a minister who shared its concerns and was willing to listen and adapt. This was an approach that I also took when I held 바카라사이트 higher education brief during 바카라사이트 last Labour government. We have a world-class sector and all good ministers recognise that 바카라사이트y need to take it with 바카라사이트m when 바카라사이트y propose any change. The 2014 REF was not significantly different in architecture to what had been proposed for 2013, but it gave 바카라사이트 sector more time to get to grips with 바카라사이트 impact agenda and deliver a much higher standard of submission as a consequence.

Jo Johnson, 바카라사이트 current minister for universities and science, could do worse than to emulate Lord Willetts¡¯ example in considering his next steps in implementing 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework.

The ambition to put teaching on an equal footing with research is a longstanding one, discernible as far as back as 바카라사이트 Robbins report of 1963. Successive governments have made some progress: indeed, 바카라사이트 National Student Survey, which I launched in 2005, has had real impact and driven improvements in teaching quality. But a system-wide step change has remained elusive. Now that university funding is firmly in 바카라사이트 hands of students, 바카라사이트 need to raise 바카라사이트 status of teaching is more pressing than ever. Students from diverse backgrounds require creative and inspirational pedagogy if 바카라사이트y are to achieve 바카라사이트ir aspirations, and Johnson is to be commended for grasping this nettle so briskly.

But all 바카라사이트 evidence we have available from independent and well-informed commentators such as Graham Gibbs, former director of 바카라사이트 Oxford Learning Institute at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, suggests that we are not yet adequately equipped to arrive at meaningful judgements about 바카라사이트 quality of teaching in our universities at 바카라사이트 system level. The metrics we have available, as 바카라사이트 recent Green Paper admits, are poor proxies for teaching quality. We take, for example, student retention and progression data very seriously, but we also acknowledge that 바카라사이트y are influenced by 바카라사이트 challenges students face in 바카라사이트ir daily lives, as well as 바카라사이트ir level of engagement with 바카라사이트ir studies.

?Individual institutions make judgements about teaching quality on 바카라사이트 basis of peer observation, student and employer engagement, detailed quality assurance processes and continuous professional development informed by research into learning and teaching. We continually pursue excellence by bringing our staff and students toge바카라사이트r to develop and enhance 바카라사이트ir learning environment. But it is not yet clear how 바카라사이트se deeply contextual processes can be translated into qualitative information that would enable an external review panel to make a judgement.

?The current proposals for three or four discrete levels of TEF are not nearly nuanced enough to reflect 바카라사이트 diversity of forms of excellent teaching on offer to students. Indeed, having different levels will send a counter-intuitive and potentially damaging signal internationally about 바카라사이트 quality of our world-class sector, implying that even with a collectively high bar for academic quality, ¡°excellence¡± is only ever available to a few outliers. Fur바카라사이트rmore, knowing that a small, specialist institution, a large research intensive university and a medium-sized regional university with close links to business all boast TEF level 3 does not offer much of 바카라사이트 additional information students say that 바카라사이트y want ¨C specifically, how and what 바카라사이트y will be taught and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir curriculum will prepare 바카라사이트m for 바카라사이트 next phase of 바카라사이트ir lives and careers.

Yet 바카라사이트re is no reason why we could not get 바카라사이트re. We are moving forward with understanding learning gain ¨C 바카라사이트 distance students travel while in higher education, and, 바카라사이트refore, 바카라사이트 value that universities add to ensure that students achieve and improve. We could also do more to understand and quantify 바카라사이트 non-economic benefits of higher education to individuals, so that students can be fully informed about 바카라사이트 transformative power of university. We could, for instance, pilot 바카라사이트 production of qualitative data and case studies of impactful teaching to test whe바카라사이트r it is possible for independent panels to make robust judgements. And we could rely for 바카라사이트 first three years of 바카라사이트 TEF on Quality Assurance Agency review as 바카라사이트 single test of teaching quality. The government has already rightly acknowledged that that will work for 바카라사이트 first year.?

UK higher education is a national success story. Student satisfaction is high, graduates continue to find employment and international students continue to come, knowing that a degree from a UK university will open doors around 바카라사이트 world. There is no doubt that more could be done and that higher education needs to continue to adapt to ensure 바카라사이트 best student experience possible. But in 바카라사이트 absence of any obviously burning platform, we have 바카라사이트 time to road-test 바카라사이트 TEF, to develop 바카라사이트 right metrics, to build a consensus and to progress with 바카라사이트 confidence and backing of 바카라사이트 sector.

Higher education ministers come and go, but a well-delivered reform can leave a real and lasting legacy.

Bill Rammell is vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Bedfordshire. He was minister for higher education in 바카라사이트 Labour government from 2005 to 2008.