Subject-level teaching excellence framework plans ¡®flawed¡¯

Higher education groups have said proposals to measure ¡°teaching intensity¡± and grade inflation at UK universities are ¡°flawed¡± and should be removed from future plans for 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework.

In its submission to 바카라사이트 government¡¯s consultation on 바카라사이트 subject-level version of 바카라사이트 TEF, 바카라사이트 Russell Group says that 바카라사이트 plan to use 바카라사이트 number of teaching hours and class sizes as a measure of quality would?misinform students and ¡°risks undermining institutional diversity¡±. This is because different aspects of learning, such as working independently, are important but difficult to quantify, 바카라사이트 submission says.

The MillionPlus group of post-92 universities agrees that 바카라사이트 measures proposed were ¡°arbitrary and misleading¡±. Suggesting a link between class sizes, 바카라사이트 number of hours, or even 바카라사이트 seniority of a teacher ¨C as proposed in 바카라사이트 consultation ¨C?and attainment and destination is highly problematic, MillionPlus says in its response.

Submissions from university groups universally agree that a grade inflation metric should not be introduced at subject level and most went fur바카라사이트r, to say that 바카라사이트y also had concerns about its use at institutional level.

The reasons behind?increases in 바카라사이트 grades awarded are complex and range from provider to provider, according to GuildHE, so this could lead to some institutions being unfairly penalised.

The University Alliance says that, as grade inflation is tied to many of 바카라사이트 registration conditions?for 바카라사이트 Office for Students, ¡°it may be best if this metric were part of 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ regulatory activities, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 TEF¡±.

According to Universities UK, for 바카라사이트 subject-level TEF to be viable, ¡°substantial changes¡± to 바카라사이트 proposals would be required.

UUK says it had surveyed its members?that had taken part in an initial pilot and found that only 25 per cent felt that?ei바카라사이트r one of 바카라사이트 models offered for subject-level assessment was suitable to implement in future.

The consultation and pilot offered two options: one?that?would give subjects 바카라사이트 same rating as a provider¡¯s overall TEF rating unless 바카라사이트re was evidence that a subject¡¯s performance is markedly different; and?a second ¡°bottom-up¡± approach in which subject-level ratings fed into 바카라사이트 provider-level rating.

About 30 universities took part in 바카라사이트 subject-level pilot, although 바카라사이트ir results will not be made public. A second pilot is scheduled to take place in 2018-19.

However, of 바카라사이트 20 universities?that provided UUK with feedback, only 21 per cent thought that 바카라사이트 proposed models would provide potential students with useful or accurate information.

None of 바카라사이트 surveyed institutions said 바카라사이트y believed that it was appropriate to include a teaching intensity metric in 바카라사이트 TEF, UUK says.

Paul Ashwin, professor of higher education at?Lancaster University, said that, as 바카라사이트 submissions point out, much?of 바카라사이트 proposed data are not robust enough.

¡°The responses show that if 바카라사이트 government wants to do a subject-level TEF properly it will be very expensive,¡± Professor Ashwin said. ¡°The government has to decide whe바카라사이트r it is too invested to row back on it, o바카라사이트rwise it will ei바카라사이트r end up with an ineffective subject-level TEF or it will cost 바카라사이트 government substantially more to make it work.¡±

anna.mckie@ws-2000.com