 |
 |
Remember that for the reputation of HE education, Oxford and Cambridge need to come top of any TEF based league table
On 16 July 2015 at 13:20, Ellen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi All - Another lurker weighing in.
I attended a meeting at GuildHE last week to discuss ('consult on') this very topic with HEFCE and BIS persons present. A summary of the discussion can be seen here:
Briefly, 3 main 'fuzzy edges' were identified that need consideration. An excerpt:
...We need to work towards a framework that combines data, independent, peer review and subject and institutional specific approaches, that are owned by and driven by institutions, teaching staff and students.
How to do that? One interesting example of practice is at Plymouth College of Art. They are developing an institutional Teaching Excellence Framework. An approach that allows institutions to define teaching excellence in its own context and be held to account for that in addition to nationally comparable metrics and independent review, which could square the circle. Ministers may have to accept that such approaches are very much harder (perhaps impossible) to measure and compare nationally, but they are essential for institutional management and will make for a better TEF.
I am responsible for the Plymouth College of Art remarks. The development of our own framework arises from discussions held college-wide (and granted, we are a very small specialist college) about what kinds of teaching and learning we would expect to see in classrooms and studios where effective T&L is taking place. Apart from stimulating interesting debate and development, a purpose has been to try to capture and communicate this for use in our peer observation scheme, which is largely developmental but may also flag areas in need of management intervention. As a new HEI we have been engaging critically with the UKPSF, using this as another 'dimension' of our own framework, with indications of disciplinary similarities and distinctions (this is in progress), which informs some of the feedback/forward and CPD.
An important point I'm not sure has been mentioned (apologies if it has) is the potential for collaboration with students in developments - I know some institutions are already doing this and training students as observers, too. That is our plan.
Also worth mentioning there was some feeling around the GuildHE table that the inspections of HE should resemble those of OFSTED.
Ellen Sims, Head of Learning and Teaching, Plymouth College of Art, http://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/
On 16 July 2015 at 11:58, Phil Race <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Rebuke accepted. Chris.
However, when you said
"We need to campaign for joined up thinking and one set of agreed indicators. And they may not be perfect, but I honestly think we should be able to come up with a set that would do more harm than good!"
I presume you meant the reverse? It's my fear that we end up with more harm than good.CheersPhil
__________________________________Professor Phil RaceBSc PhD PGCE FCIPD PFHEA NTF
follow@RacePhilWebsite: http://phil-race.co.uk/___________________________________
On 16 July 2015 at 10:38, Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Phil
I don't trust the Govt. either - but rather than getting into academic semantic discussions about what is teaching, or negative reactions that it is just not possible to measure it, i think our community needs to actively engage with what measures might we accept, assuming that there is going to be a TEF one way or another. And there are certainly things, like employability, that it would be nonsense to include.
And I think there are a lot of sensible things we could actively consider.
To name but a few:- we could look at the scholarship index that University of Sydney used briefly back in the 90s- the number of staff with a teaching qualification- the UK version of the NSSE currently being developed and piloted- some of the indicators suggested by Graham Gibbs in his two "Dimensions of quality" publications
And we should also take note of the issue raised by Roger Brown in last week's Higher, that we must avoid two sets of indicators - one for the TEF, and one coming out the Quality Assessment Review and any new QA procedures. We need to campaign for joined up thinking and one set of agreed indicators. And they may not be perfect, but I honestly think we should be able to come up with a set that would do more harm than good!
Best wishesChris
Chris RustProfessor EmeritusOxford Brookes University, UK
<PastedGraphic-5.tiff>
On 16 Jul 2015, at 10:23, Phil Race wrote:
Good points Ruth.I don't trust the 'government' either. I don't trust myself to judge excellence fairly, as I sit today trying to do just that as external for a Uni's teaching excellence awards, as all I have to 'measure' is words about what good folk say about what they do."If you can measure teaching excellence, it probably isn't it" I keep thinking.
It's probably another manifestation of Heisenberg' uncertainty principle - if you can find exactly where it is, you don't know exactly how fast it's going!
Enough work avoidance. Back to my desk and attempts to grade shades of excellence!Fascinating discussion from the perspective of a confirmed lurker.
I found myself thinking the crux is exactly as you all outline.. If we are to begin to measure (heaven forfend) teaching, we need to be clear about the concept of ¡®learning' and why it is / should be different in the HE environment, and also we need to have considerably more clarity than currently on ¡®Excellence¡¯ , and, finally, we need to be able to clearly identify the extent to which any impact we have on learning can genuinely be ¡®measurable¡¯, which surprisingly all brings me back - as ever - to ourselves as professionals and our ability to reflect, inform our own practice and make appropriate decisions on our practice and its enhancement.
'Ein zu weites Feld' as they would have it in Effi Briest! - it is making my head spin, but I know one thing, I am not sure I trust the ¡®government¡¯ to make these decisions ¡..
Thank you for this
On 15 Jul 2015, at 22:19, Boyd, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If a teacher is broadly framing the learning but allows some riskSo that the learners may respond creatively to the activityAnd surprise the teacher who therefore continues to learn(and may also take the opportunity to model ¡®being a learner¡¯)So do words such as ako / Ji¨¤oy¨´ / Bildung or even ¡®education¡¯Capture the idea of shared learning / scholarshipIn the ¡®classroom¡¯ of the skilled teacher in school or university?No risk ¨C no learningPeteFrom: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alice Lau
Sent: 15 July 2015 22:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsInteresting, in Chinese ¨C education is " ½ÌÓý"(Ji¨¤oy¨´) - the two characters mean "to teach" and "to nurture" - which I see as similar to what John said - the idea of drawing out what is already within.Best wishes,Alice-- Dr. Alice Lau (FHEA)Senior Lecturer in Learning, Teaching and Professional DevelopmentEducational Development UnitQueen Mary BuildingGreenwich CampusUniversity of GreenwichOld Royal Naval College, Park RowLondon SE10 9LSTelephone: +44 (0)2083319640Reply-To: Barbara Kensington-Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 21:46
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsI agree. Interestingly in New Zealand we use a Maori word, ¡°ako¡±, which means both to teach and to learn. There is no distinction.Best,Barbara-------------------------------------------------------Dr Barbara Kensington-MillerSenior Lecturer I Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education (CLeaR) I Faculty of Education and Social Work I The University of AucklandPrivate Bag 92019 I Auckland 1142 I Aotearoa/New Zealandwww.clear.auckland.ac.nz I T +64 9 3737 599, ext 82091 I DD +64 9 923 2091 I F +64 9 373 7474 I E [log in to unmask]Co-editor l Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice Ihttp://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAPFrom: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lea, John ([log in to unmask])
Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2015 8:12 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsForgive me, I was away when we did Latin at school. The teaching was too boring. But I do remember from somewhere that there are two verbs `to educate¡¯: one implying that we must place knowledge in a student, and the other implying that we must draw out what is already within¡BestJohnJohn Lea
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Fung, Dilly <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 July 2015 20:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsCan we not just reinstate the word 'education'?For me, talking about 'teaching and learning' rather than 'education' is a bit like talking about 'data gathering and analysis' (or maybe 'data analysis and dissemination') instead of 'research'.In both cases the single, more holistic term implies a richer, more nuanced, more multi-faceted endeavour.At least, it does in my simple mind!All the bestDilly
Dr Dilly Fung PFHEADirector, Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT)University College London1-19 Torrington Place,London, WC1E 7HBTwitter: @DevonDillySent from my iPad
On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:22, "Brown, Ruth" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Hear, hear, Prof Pete.Maybe it is simply because there are 2 words ¨C unlike in many languages?RuthFrom: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boyd, Pete
Sent: 15 July 2015 17:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsWhy do the English struggle with the meaning of 'teaching' as if it does not include learning? Ironically an obsession with 'learning and teaching' units rather than vice versa may simply add to managerialist propoganda mantras associated with massification eg 'learn more, teach less' while the oxford tutorial continues for a fortunate few. A skilled teacher is at the heart of most rich learning experiences and deserves recognition and status. The metrics are the issue and if we must have an acronym then let's keep it short :-)
Prof Pete
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jo Peat <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:09:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsI¡¯d be a taker, John. I particularly agree with positioning the focus on enhancing learning rather than teaching, which, as you say, seems to place the focus squarely on what we ¡®do¡¯ to students rather than on a partnership around learning. The divorcing of research from learning and teaching is not helpful either and just serves to reinforce the idea that research is somehow something separate and ¡®different¡¯ rather than part and parcel of the academic world with learning enhancement.One of my main concerns if that , if a TEF (if that acronym stays) is developed, will the people developing it be those we really need to see in that role?BestJoJo PeatFrom: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lea, John ([log in to unmask])
Sent: 15 July 2015 10:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TEF thoughtsThanks 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 ¨C 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?JohnJohn Lea
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Julie Hall <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 July 2015 13:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TEF thoughtsDear colleaguesI think the following is quite an interesting blog,https://derfelowen.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/the-tef-what-should-it-measure/julie
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. University of Roehampton does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of University of Roehampton is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by University of Roehampton.
University of Roehampton is the trading name of Roehampton University, a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. University of Roehampton does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of University of Roehampton is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by University of Roehampton.
University of Roehampton is the trading name of Roehampton University, a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
University of Cumbria is a Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in England & Wales No. 06033238. Registered Office: University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle, CA1 2HH. Telephone 01228 616234.
Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.Copyright in this email and in any attachments belongs to London South Bank University. This email, and its attachments if any, may be confidential or legally privileged and is intended to be seen only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please note the following: (1) You should take immediate action to notify the sender and delete the original email and all copies from your computer systems; (2) You should not read copy or use the contents of the email nor disclose it or its existence to anyone else. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and should not be taken as those of London South Bank University, unless this is specifically stated. London South Bank University is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales. The following details apply to London South Bank University: Company number - 00986761; Registered office and trading address - 103 Borough Road London SE1 0AA; VAT number - 778 1116 17 Email address - [log in to unmask]
University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee,
registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered office:
Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS.
University of Cumbria is a Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in England & Wales No. 06033238. Registered Office: University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle, CA1 2HH. Telephone 01228 616234.
Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
--
Dr Ian Scott, Associate Dean Student Experience, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Oxford Brookes University
Marston Road
Oxford
OX3 OFL
0044 1865 48 2638
Have you seen
Scott, I. and Mazhindu, D. (2014) Statistics for Health Care Professionals: An Introduction (2nd Edition). Sage
Scott, I. and Spouse, J. (2013) Practice based Learning in Nursing, Health and Social Care; Mentorship, Facilitation and Supervision, Wiley
Ely, C and Scott, I. (2007) Essential study skills for Nursing, Elsevier
