Written evidence from Alice Day (QHE 87)

1. As a current student of the University of Sheffield I feel driven to raise my concerns regarding the proposed changes to quality assessment and specifically the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). This submission recommends that the committee reconsiders the aims and objectives of the TEF as students are the best judges of knowing what they want, not a set of metrics. Furthermore, my submission recommends that any assessment of quality should never be associated with fee raising powers.

What should be the objectives of a Teaching Excellence Framework (‘TEF’)?

a)     How should a TEF benefit students? Academics? Universities?

2. The Higher Education Green Paper 2015 highlighted that prospective students will be able to use the TEF results to inform decisions about which institution to attend.[1] This submission recognises the benefit of comparative information regarding teaching and learning quality. Confusion created by conflicting league tables can often leave applicants unsure of the quality of universities.[2] Many Russell Group universities score highly on league tables for overall quality, but scored much lower for teaching quality in the Guardian’s annual guide, for example Coventry scored higher than Cambridge.[3] A framework focusing on teaching quality would help to alleviate this problem, for example by providing the typical forms of teaching used in the course, number of contact hours and forms of feedback. The applicant can then choose the course most suited to their learning style.
3. A TEF will only be a benefit to students, academics and universities if it accurately reflects the quality of teaching within institutions. The UK higher education system is varied in its approaches to learning and courses. A TEF measuring quality by specific merits, would not adequately grasp the unique qualities in our HE institutions. Due to the differences in teaching between disciplines, it is unwise to rely on quantitative data alone, as this could misrepresent the quality of teaching across departments. An NUS Student experience report suggested there are vast differences in teaching quality of teaching within universities as the way “students rate the quality of teaching is… significantly influenced by subject area.”[4] Quantifying teaching quality would stifle this individuality and thus the TEF should include a variety of qualitative measures and indicators. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) noted that “Quality is more commonly measured in a qualitative rather than a quantitative way” through various considerations such as: access to learning spaces, availability of IT and transparency of assessment criteria.[5] This submission recommends that the committee encourages the government to make the TEF subject and university specific, rather than by the institution as a whole and this would be more beneficial to prospective students.
4. A TEF should benefit universities and academics by encouraging quality in teaching, allowing the university to promote excellence to prospective students and investors. Students want a rich educational experience without barriers to expanding their knowledge. Universities should challenge students intellectually, using different forms of learning and teaching for different courses, through being immersed in the innovative practices of academics. Sir Keith Burnett, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield recently summed up the argument stating, “Great teaching is not inconsistent with academic freedom; it depends upon it. It demands the unshackled possibility to question and seek knowledge wherever it is to be found, and to convey this to students without the fear of intervention or sanction by the state.”[6] The TEF would potentially standardise teaching quality and lead to teachers using specific teaching formats to hit TEF targets. This submission recommends that the committee considers the metrics used for the framework as they could encourage universities and teachers to pursue positive evaluations, stifling innovative practice.

What are the institutional behaviours a TEF should drive? How can a system by designed to avoid unintended consequences?

5. The Higher Education Green Paper stated “teaching has been regarded as a poor cousin to academic research”.[7] Whilst this submission recognises this, it recommends that the emphasis on improving teaching does not come at the expense of quality research. Quality research often leads to quality teaching by allowing the academic to explore new ideas alongside their students, providing contemporary teaching. Some lecturers and tutors are distracted by research and appear to find teaching a chore, however, this is definitely a minority. The best teachers are often those who are internationally recognised academics with many pressures on their time. The committee should consider other ways that the emphasis on research could be better balanced with teaching to ensure the quality of research as well as teaching is maintained.

How should the proposed connection between fee level and teaching quality be managed?

a)     What should be the relationship between the TEF and fee level?

6. In September 2015 Minister for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson, stated that “the TEF will not just be about accessing additional funds – I want it to bring about a fundamental shift in how we think about and value teaching in our universities.”[8] However, after the fee cap was raised from 2004 almost every university increased fees to £3000 and again to £9000 in 2012. Most universities are likely to seek to raise them again. In today’s world it is essential to have a degree to enter many careers, so the demand for places at university will remain despite fee increases. This submission encourages the committee to suggest to the government that it should promote excellence in teaching, without financial incentives. Further from my argument in paragraph 3, the TEF could encourage universities to implement teaching practices that provide them with a good TEF rating and therefore the opportunity to raise fees.
7. Jo Johnson also stated that, “Our universities should be open to everyone who can benefit from them, regardless of family background or ability to pay.” Introducing a TEF with fee raising powers would subvert this by creating a hierarchy between universities, by showing those charging higher fees as providing a better service. In 2012 QAA highlighted “the growing marketisation of higher education and its emphasis upon students as consumers” and how this was expected to drive up quality.[9] However, as QAA note, this “places a growing emphasis on reputational hierarchy.”[10] The fee raising powers related to the TEF would mean that those able to pay more would be able to access better quality services. The Higher Education Policy Institute report ‘It’s the finance, stupid!’ (October 2015) shows financial barriers still prevent students going to university and have contributed to the decline in part-time higher education.[11] From the perspective of a student reliant on bursaries and grants, this submission recommends that there shouldn’t be the power to increase fees following a good TEF rating, as this further discourages students from disadvantaged backgrounds from applying to quality universities which charge higher fees.

Concluding statements

8. From a student perspective, it is desirable that the TEF wants to put students back at the heart of the system, however, this shouldn’t make students consumers. Higher education exists in order to expand knowledge, quality teaching should be inherent to this, but this should not be to the detriment of research or access by those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Quality should be encouraged, but not through financial incentives or by standardising teaching. To really put students at the heart of the system, universities should provide students with better opportunities to raise concerns over quality. Government set metrics could be misinterpreted.

December 2015

Bibliography

Burnett, K., ‘Want to raise the quality of teaching? Begin with academic freedom’ (The Times Higher Education, 3 August 2015) https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/want-raise-quality-teaching-begin-academic-freedom (accessed 9 December 2015).

Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice 2015 Cm 9141.

Johnson, J., ‘Higher Education: fulfilling our potential’, (University of Surrey, 9 September 2015) https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/higher-education-fulfilling-our-potential (accessed 9 December 2015).

National Union of Students and HSBC, ‘NUS Student Experience Report’ http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/4017/NUS_StudentExperienceReport.pdf (accessed 9 December 2015).

Oxford Royale Academy, ‘University Teaching Quality: The Truth Behind the League Tables’ (Oxford Royale Academy, 19 March 2014) https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/articles/university-teaching-quality.html (accessed 9 December 2015).

The Guardian, ‘University league tables 2016’, http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016#all (accessed 9 December 2015).

The Quality Assurance Agency, ‘Explaining Contact Hours’ http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/contact-hours.pdf (accessed 9 December 2015).

The Quality Assurance Agency, ‘Impact of Quality Assurance’ http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/impact-of-quality-assurance.pdf (accessed 9 December 2015).