Print

---

Thanks Julie,

 

Aside from the interesting points made by the respondents to this blog about the flaws in any metrics-based system, there are also those bigger issues on which I think most of us in our SEDA on-line community agree (???):

 

1 Particularly in higher education anything which (perhaps inadvertently) encourages people (students; their parents etc.) to focus on teaching rather then enhancing learning is a step in the wrong direction.  If this exercise is to be abbreviated to an acronym, shouldn’t it be a LEF – and shouldn’t the E there be enhancement not excellence, or perhaps even better, engagement?

 

2 And that’s what’s wrong with the NSS as a measurement tool.  Asking students at the end of their third year about whether their teachers have been good at explaining things just encourages students to see themselves as still dependent on their teachers, and just at that moment when they should be breaking free from all that, and becoming the autonomous or independent learners that the Quality Code for HE actually demands.

 

3 And if a TEF sits next to a REF aren’t we in serious danger of forgetting what we all learnt from Elton, Healey and Jenkins and others, that one of the most important impacts of research should be its impact on student learning. And two separate measures will probably leave that debate still hanging in the air, with the old status quo pretty much intact. Wouldn’t it be a relief for all of us if the two exercises finally came together a bit more?  RELIEF; now that’s a good acronym: Research Excellence & Learning Impact & Enhancement Framework.  Any takers?