The independent student submission is also a new development (though pre-figured to an extent in the subject-level pilot) – previously student interests were deemed to be included in a provider statement and the use of NSS-derived indicators. Education gain makes a reappearance here, too – though OfS is not keen on developing a national measure, it encourages providers to submit their own definitions and accompanying evidence. In a new twist, OfS would be able to carry out validation checks on a random sample of submissions, based on provider support in supplying and indicating referenced content, data, and statements. Expect a template from OfS – there’d be a 20 page limit, and the hints in Annex C suggest a range of evidence without prescribing any particular indicators. The provider submission, previously just a chance to caveat unpromising flag scores, would be greatly expanded and submitted alongside an optional student submission.
#TEFVIEW SAVE FILE FREE#
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish universities are free to participate on a voluntary basis, should they wish to. The requirement for registered providers in England with more than 500 FTE registered (not taught, as previously) undergraduate higher education students would remain, as does voluntary participation for others – though once you volunteer you are not permitted to withdraw from the exercise. Wonkhe readers will be pleased to learn that B3 (outcomes) benchmarks will also include compensation for geographies of employment, that error bars will be used in the presentation of statistical uncertainty, and that the original “flags” signifying notable performance above or below benchmark and calculated on standard deviation will be replaced with an assessment of “materiality”, equivalent to 2.5 percentage points above or below the benchmarks. OfS argues that, for TEF purposes, benchmarking should remain broadly as currently constituted (there’s a separate consultation on the use of data) though Associations Between Characteristics of Students (ABCS) will be used rather than age, disability, ethnicity, and sex for the B3 measures. There will be disaggregation by mode (full-time, part-time, apprenticeship), with second-level splits covering level of study, subject of study (CaH level 2), student characteristics, year of entry or qualification, specific course types (with foundation year, higher technical qualification), and partnership arrangements. Those numeric indicators would constitute four years of data on five scales (“agree” or “mostly agree” from teaching, assessment, support, learning resources, and student voice as long as the current survey exists) from NSS, and three measures (continuation, completion, and progression) from the B3 monitoring process. Bronze, silver, and gold awards remain in the OfS proposals, with the addition of a “requires improvement” award, using the word “award” in the loosest sense. The next TEF will be carried out during 2022-23 with results announced in April and May 2023, ready for use in 2024-25 recruitment. We’re here looking at proposals for a quadrennial exercise, based on an equally weighted expert panel assessment, with Sheffield Hallam vice chancellor Chris Husbands returning as chair, of student experience and student outcomes at provider level – of which only half of the evidence is derived from the numeric indicators (to be based on the NSS and B3 output measures, with benchmarks).
![tefview save file tefview save file](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hgtel0zAR1E/maxresdefault.jpg)
For further information on the previous structure of the TEF as it was last run – there have been numerous changes since it was initially spelled out in the original white paper – see our guide to “ the incredible machine”. TEF has not run since 2019, and providers are not currently permitted to publicise previous awards – some of the underlying data now relates to graduating cohorts more than ten years old. There is no evidence to suggest that this has worked, but a statutory review of the OfS process chaired by former vice chancellor Shirley Pearce – hence the Pearce Review – identified a benefit to teaching quality enhancement for providers. The Bronze, Silver, and Gold awards were designed as a mechanism to inform applicant choice. Originally proposed in the 2015 Conservative manifesto, the first version of the Teaching Excellence Framework addressed provider performance against benchmarked indicators drawing on student experience (NSS) and outcomes (DLHE, continuation measures). Today, fifteen proposals, some of which – as we will see – stick more closely to the recommendations of the independent Pearce Review than others, outline in broad strokes the shape of the exercise that will return to the original TEF nomenclature (bizarrely considered to be “now well-known, including internationally”). The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) is dead – long live the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).