Just a slight correction. The notes aren't mine, they were collated from the various discussions by Tom Frostick at University Alliance. I was just the messenger.
Kind regards
Paul
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Stephen Lacey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A FRIENDLY REMINDER: if you click REPLY to this email, you will be sending an email to over 2500 subscribers. Please do so only if you wish to respond to everyone.
______________ To join, leave or suspend list postings, visit www.scudd.org.uk/list ______________Dear Franc (and everyone),
This is a good question, to which I don't have a good answer. It seems that there has been a muted response to the idea of a TEF - a few grumblings, but not a full-on campaign against it. I think there are three reasons for this (although colleagues will be able to think of others).
Firstly, if we have accepted the REF (or at least learned to live with it) then it might appear inconsistent to be opposed to a TEF, especially in an age of high tuition fees. This is clearly part of the government's argument.
Secondly, quite a few universities will see a TEF as a way of addressing what they argue is an imbalance in the way that teaching-oriented (and/or less research oriented) universities appear in the pecking order. The assumption is that a lot of high-performing universities, in research terms, don't 'do' teaching as well as universities that appear lower down in the league tables, and a TEF might remedy this (I am not endorsing this point of view, and I don't think it is true of our discipline, but it seems to underpin some of the commentary in the THE, for example).
Thirdly, I suspect some universities and commentators are keeping their powder dry, waiting to see what exactly is proposed, and hoping to influence the process as it develops.
Whatever merit there is in a TEF, the wider context is of an increasingly consumerist higher education culture, in which 'price' - the fees charged by universities, which the government will allow to rise in line with inflation - will entrench an individualistic model of HE and a divisive class system.
If you haven't seen it, do read Stefan Collini's article about the financial and ideological impact of fees this week in the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/05/tuition-fees-students
If I may be immodest, you can also read an article I have written recently for STP (Vol 35 issue 2 2015) on drama in universities that explores some of these issues. It is available as a free download at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rstp20/current#.VcSR6vk1o4U
Thanks to Paul Kleiman for his notes on the TEF workshop. We will need to be vigilant in the coming months as the plans for a TEF develop, so please share your thoughts and ideas on the list.
Best wishes
Stephen
Stephen Lacey
Emeritus Professor of Drama, Film and TelevisionChair of the Standing Conference of University Drama Departments (SCUDD)
Faculty of Creative and Cultural Industries
University of South Wales
From: SCUDD List at JISC [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Franc Chamberlain [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 August 2015 18:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Notes from TEF workshop, University Alliance.
A FRIENDLY REMINDER: if you click REPLY to this email, you will be sending an email to over 2500 subscribers. Please do so only if you wish to respond to everyone.
Is there anyone saying that this is a really bad idea or are we simply going along with it?
Franc______________ To join, leave or suspend list postings, visit www.scudd.org.uk/list ______________
On 5 August 2015 at 10:39, Paul Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A FRIENDLY REMINDER: if you click REPLY to this email, you will be sending an email to over 2500 subscribers. Please do so only if you wish to respond to everyone.
Dear Colleagues,______________ To join, leave or suspend list postings, visit www.scudd.org.uk/list ______________
Those interested in debates and discussions around the TEF will be interested in the 'table notes' from the recent table discussions at the University Alliance TEF workshop on 29 July 2015. Circulated with UA permission, and my thanks to Lise Uytterhoeven (Apologies for the layout, due to the 'no attachment' rule).Discussion 1: What is excellent teaching?
• Some of the tables focused on the challenge of defining excellent teaching. They pointed out that it is “difficult to define” and “hard to measure”. It may also be subjective: “in the eye of the beholder”, “depending on perspective”. It would certainly be “different in different disciplines” and recognise that “one size does not fit all”. Some pointed out that “teaching is only one element of successful learning”.
• Others focused on the components of excellent teaching. They felt it should be: “relevant”, “inspiring”, “fun”, “stimulating and empowering”, “encouraging creative thinking”, “innovative” and “student-centred”. It should “encourage independent learning” and “develop, change, transform” students. It should be “grounded in research and scholarly activity” and “linked to the real world beyond the classroom”. It should “link knowledge and be practice-led” and “engage employers”. Some felt that high-quality engagement between staff and students is an important element and others emphasised “co-production between student and lecturers”.
• Some focused on what any definition of excellent teaching should mean within the context of a teaching excellence framework. It should be: “achievable by all” even if it did differentiate between the best and others. It should “change the culture of students and staff”, be “peer supported” and encourage “reflection and evaluation”. It should “reward excellent teachers” and recognise “learning gain”. It should have a “high impact at scale”. It also needed to be “progressive” – “giving equal and fair opportunity to all students”. It should recognise and reward work-based learning. Some felt that it would be “difficult and expensive” but this could be mitigated if it were “HE-led” and not overly bureaucratic.
Discussion 2: Scope of a teaching excellence framework
IN SCOPE• Professionalism of teachers and curriculum, e.g. qualifications, reward and recognitions schemes• The whole HEI – including institutional culture – mission, access to facilities• Research• Learning gain• Inclusive practices• (Use of) learning environment• Student engagement/robust student satisfaction measures• Practical work and industrial experience• Assessment of students• Outcomes for students / graduate destinations• Employer perspectives• Collaboration between disciplines• Contact hours (weighted by class size)• Timely progression• Retention• Value for money• Impact studies
OUT OF SCOPE
• Focus on individual teaching/teachers• Metrics without context• Contact hours without context• Rate of pass/fail• Using REF as a proxy for research-led teaching• Institutional spend• Student staff ratio data• QA
Other comments included:- It should consist of a flexible basket of indicators – but have a “responsible” attitude to metrics. Some felt there should be some “core metrics”.- The metrics should be understood within their context – based on the mission of the university.- It should include an element of peer assessment/peer judgement.- There are some things – like PG teaching and part-time/non-traditional learning – that should be included in time but perhaps not in the first phase.- We could learn from college HE – who have traditionally focussed on good teaching
Discussion 3: Incentives and metrics
What should the TEF incentivise?• A re-imagined teaching fellowship• Sharing good practice internally & externally• Positive teaching/learning environments• Promotion of good teachers• Widening participation
COMPONENT OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE | METRICS
Student engagement | NSS, External Examples, NSSE Framework
Staff engagement | PACERT, HESA
Contextualised motivation and success | Benchmarks
Learning environment | Contextualised learning hours
Professional good standards | Staff survey, NSS, HEAR, CPD for lecturers, staff: revolving door foremployers ~ HEA quality but improvedLearning gain (distance travelled) | Contextualised related to missionand student, student survey, employersurvey, student engagement (longitudinaldata)
Employer consultation,employability (turning up on time, etc)~ employer case studies /impact case studies
Relevance -
Retention -
Progression | DLHE Data (not the current version!)
Student is able to apply -knowledge & skillsInnovation | Peer discussion and teach-reflective practice
What unintended consequences should we avoid?• Grade inflation• Splitting staff into pockets• Should not allow bad teaching to be hidden• Judgements being made without a real line of accountability• Dividing professional pathways into teaching vs. research• Gaming i.e. To uprate NSS• Status quo in league table• Disincentivising out-of-scope areas (ie. Part-time, post-grad, distance learning)• Disadvantaging students from less-advantaged backgrounds
Discussion 4 – Build your own TEF• Most of the models assumed a phased approach and looked at what should be included in each phase:• Phase one (for 2017) should prioritise driving engagement and co-creation. The metrics should be kept simple and might include: NSS, with less relevant sections removed; HESA KPIs; and Graduate employment data. Alongside this, the university would submit a statement including its mission and comment and context. It should be designed so most universities get through• Phase two would also include impact case studies led by institutions and students to include: student engagement, student voice, co-creation and graduate outcomes. Others commented that DLHE should be improved before Phase 2. Some thought external examiners reports, with a view on standards, could play a part.
• Some tables provided baskets of measures which included:• HMRC stats• Peer review of teaching• QAA data• Contact hours and class size/staff student ratios• Responsive process• Info from external examiners• Student survey (engagement)• Useful for league table compilers• Better destinations data• Environment/impact – Learn from REF?• Estates environment• Investment• Industry placements• Award/qualification outcomes• Completion data
• Some liked the idea of a cyclical TEF where the institution provides a set of basic information – which could trigger a visit if needed in conjunction with the QAA – or even spot checks if carefully managed (not Ofsted style)
Additional comments included:- Show trajectories (e.g. improvement in employment)- Risk that the results will not be robust enough to avoid challenge and appeals- Risk that teachers feel measured and threatened but gains are all at an institutional level- If TEF is to be used to justify differential fees, this should be at the course level, not institution level- Will need to do regularly – give institutions opportunity to improve- Need to do an initial evaluation covering everyone – equal playing field- Does it need to have a related concerns process?- Could have regular light touch approach / detailed evaluation of everyone- Needs to be informed by student views
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile