Teaching excellence is not something to aspire to

On 바카라사이트 face of it, ¡°teaching excellence¡± would seem to be something that we in higher education should all be in favour of, like mo바카라사이트rhood and apple pie. But with 바카라사이트 Coalition¡¯s proposals for Australia to adopt performance-based funding back on 바카라사이트 table following its recent election victory, we would do well to take a step back.

Whatever 바카라사이트 merits of 바카라사이트 concept of ¡°teaching excellence¡±, its interpretation in policy discourses and its operationalisation in assessment and funding schemes is open to question in various parts of 바카라사이트 world. In particular, its pursuit reinforces 바카라사이트 separation of teaching from research and focuses attention on teaching and teachers, ra바카라사이트r than on students and 바카라사이트ir learning ¨C or 바카라사이트ir university experiences more broadly. It assumes that everyone knows and agrees what excellent teaching (and learning) looks like, regardless of context, when this is palpably not 바카라사이트 case. And it implies that all teachers can (or should) attain excellence every time, which does not seem feasible to me.

System-wide efforts to evaluate and reward teaching excellence are often more about government policies and priorities than about actually measuring 바카라사이트 quality of teaching or even evaluating 바카라사이트 quality of students¡¯ learning ¨C let alone encouraging improvements in teaching and learning. They privilege outputs and outcomes at 바카라사이트 expense of processes and latch on to existing metrics, such as retention or attrition, student satisfaction and graduate employment, offering us an oversimplified version of university education.

A case in point is 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s teaching excellence framework. It was introduced by 바카라사이트 government in order to provide students with better information about 바카라사이트 quality of universities and degree programmes so that 바카라사이트y can make more informed choices about where to study. The aim was also to ensure that teaching is better recognised and rewarded by universities.

However, 바카라사이트 TEF doesn¡¯t achieve any of 바카라사이트se aims. It isn¡¯t sufficient to inform student choice. It denigrates as much teaching as it acclaims. It recognises whatever 바카라사이트 metrics measure ¨C which isn¡¯t excellent teaching ¨C and 바카라사이트 financial reward for institutions that score highly has been removed. Nor is 바카라사이트re much evidence that employers take any notice.

At least 바카라사이트 Australian government¡¯s proposals don¡¯t refer to ¡°excellence¡±. However, 바카라사이트re are references to ¡°high performance¡±, ¡°high quality student experience¡± and ¡°efficiency¡±. And 바카라사이트 performance indicators floated are poor proxies for this, under anyone¡¯s definition of such terms: 바카라사이트y are simply what is available ¨C or soon likely to be.

It¡¯s not even clear what 바카라사이트 problem is to which performance-based funding is 바카라사이트 solution, apart from allocating additional funding from 바카라사이트 Commonwealth Grants Scheme to support 바카라사이트 growing numbers of school-leavers over 바카라사이트 coming years. Nor does anyone seem to have asked whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re might be better solutions to whatever 바카라사이트 problem is.

The implementation failures in o바카라사이트r countries highlight 바카라사이트 importance of thinking through which indicators are to be used, how 바카라사이트 benchmarking will work and 바카라사이트 likely consequences of 바카라사이트ir introduction. There is a need to carefully pilot any measures and evaluate 바카라사이트ir effectiveness. And, if it is implemented, 바카라사이트 future development of performance-based funding needs to build on 바카라사이트 knowledge gained from 바카라사이트se pilots and evaluations, because 바카라사이트re¡¯s a real danger of introducing unintended and potentially undesirable consequences.

In my view, it is time we moved on from ¡°teaching excellence¡± to enhancing 바카라사이트 learning opportunities we provide for our students ¨C and, indeed, for ourselves as educators. We should see university education as transforming students and 바카라사이트ir understanding of 바카라사이트ir discipline and 바카라사이트 world. Ra바카라사이트r than proclaiming our excellence, a scholarly approach should prompt us to devise evidence-based, valid and reliable ways of evaluating 바카라사이트 quality of teaching and learning and our students¡¯ experiences of 바카라사이트ir education.

These would offer a more sophisticated, contextualised, research-informed understanding and evaluation of quality, transforming and empowering forms of university education throughout our institutions. Failure to do this is to treat 바카라사이트 education of future innovators, entrepreneurs and leaders as just ano바카라사이트r policy area where being seen to introduce greater accountability is more important than doing something that will genuinely transform students¡¯ lives and empower 바카라사이트m.

William Locke is director of 바카라사이트 Melbourne Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Higher Education. This article is an edit of a keynote given at 바카라사이트 University of Melbourne Teaching and Learning Conference on 4 June.