Research

Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Why the TEF could change the way students think about a university education

This article was written by Chris Husbands

It is one of the remarkable transformations of our time: the world is going to university, and participation in higher education is increasing. On every continent, more young people are going to university than ever before, and increasing numbers are graduating. In the UK, over a third of 18-year-olds go to university – and that figure is higher in the US, Canada and Korea, and rising fast in China and Africa.

As a result, around the world, governments are challenging their university systems to play an ever greater part in generating knowledge, educating highly skilled workforces and building more cohesive societies.

At the same time, they are puzzling about how to afford mass higher education. And that situation opens up a potential gap, between the world of higher education providers and the world of stakeholders – who are demanding more, and demanding it more accessibly.

Teaching excellence

Universities are unique institutions – not just because they undertake research or because they teach – but because, uniquely, they do both. And great teaching matters – it matters to universities as much as it matters to schools and colleges. And for the first time the quality of teaching at English universities will be assessed as part of the introduction of the teaching excellence framework (TEF).

Of course, identifying and recognising high quality teaching is both simple and complex. Excellence in teaching is something we all know when we see it, but specifying what exactly it is turns out to be a more complex exercise.

The TEF addresses this in a sensible way. It does not set out to assess teaching quality directly, but to look for those features which are the consequence of high quality teaching and student engagement, such as strong student responses, high levels of progression and retention.

The TEF begins from a common sense position – that teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes are the right places to look for evidence of the impact universities have. It then derives “core metrics” from the annual National Student Survey and HESA data on student initial employment – and uses these to develop initial theories about the work universities are doing.

All of this will be overseen by a panel drawn from across and beyond the sector, applying its judgement and expertise – and I am the chair of the panel.

High stakes

The TEF brings the opportunity to create a structure to celebrate excellence, provide clearer market signals and enhance quality across the sector. And if we get it right, to give yet stronger signals to international students about the sheer quality to be found across UK higher education.

The UK government is clear that it wants to create a link between funding and teaching quality, which will provide opportunities to reinforce and celebrate quality. And this is an opportunity to enhance understanding of higher education and of the way teaching is developing in a responsive and fast-changing sector.

Of course there are potential risks, both for individual institutions and also to UK higher education as a global brand. That means that the panel has to get the process right, and navigate a route through a complicated mass of data on a diverse sector.

Much of the initial work has been focused on understanding and responding to sector concerns, and these matter a lot. But there are other interests, too, which is why there is student representation on the TEF panel – because we need to be alert to student concerns about the overall quality of provision. So although it is important to reflect sector concerns, it is also necessary for the sector to recognise that universities matter to others, too.

There is no denying that the stakes in the TEF are high – high for government, high for universities and high for UK higher education. But if it is designed properly, and managed effectively, the TEF can give us the opportunity to celebrate excellence and provide a common way to think about how it develops.

And with more and more young people going to university, it becomes all the more important to develop a framework we can use to communicate clearly what is going on in university teaching.

The Conversation

Chris Husbands, Vice Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education

University transformation: the wrong research questions are being asked

This article was written by Anné H. Verhoef

“Transformation” is a word regularly in global higher education research. It normally implies deep change in knowledge and curriculum. It often entails questions about inclusion, identity, diversity, power, intellectual traditions and intellectual justice.

In South Africa, the word means something quite different in higher education. Its definition is rooted in the country’s apartheid history. The transition to democracy in 1994 gave impetus to transform the higher education system into one that was open, relevant and non-discriminatory.

The problem is that transformation is often loosely defined. There’s no clear consensus about its scope and aims. This lack of clarity means that research in South Africa about a wide variety of themes under the umbrella term of “transformation” may not actually be asking the right questions.

And asking the wrong questions means getting the wrong and irrelevant answers. It also sets back policy changes. Eventually this may discourage much needed transformation in higher education.

To understand what questions are and are not being asked, two of my colleagues and I analysed 1050 articles published in the South African Journal of Higher Education between 2005 and 2015.

We found four main patterns in how authors engaged with issues of transformation. We also identified a few shortcomings in their engagements. If these are addressed, it could help ensure that this crucial topic is properly understood. This can then be translated into solid, realistic policy and changes.

Research trends in South Africa

Only 30 of the 1050 articles we examined used the words “transformation”, “transformative” or “transforming” in their titles. We then analysed the 30 in more depth. Four quite distinct approaches to understanding transformation emerged.

These were transformation through curriculum; transformation through structures; transformation through redressing equity; and transformation through access.

1. Transformation through curriculum

Twelve articles positioned transformation in the higher education curriculum. They suggested that transformation takes place through what is taught and how it is taught, how results are measured and, for instance, how technology is integrated into teaching.

The articles in this pattern also presented a curriculum as something that’s flexible and constantly evolving. The authors explored the ways that professional development and student feedback could be used to test, critique and apply curricular reforms.

Some of the articles in this pattern presented teacher education as a space in which to start transforming the curriculum.

2. Transformation through structures

Nine articles related transformation to structures in higher education. There were three key aspects in these articles: ideas, practices and the role of structure in nation building; broader national trends such as higher education policy evaluation and reform; and the structures within institutions that influence transformation.

These structures include institutional culture underpinned by hegemonic forces that shape institutional transformation. That is: university education with whom, by whom and for whom. The research in this pattern explored how an institution’s leaders can emerge as sceptics or advocates for transformation. It also looked at transformation emanating from the institutional mergers of the mid 2000s.

3. Transformation through redressing equity

Six of the articles viewed transformation as redressing equity in higher education. In a post-apartheid South African context the expectation – as outlined in the Education White Paper of 1997 – is that

the higher education system must be transformed to redress past inequalities, to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs … to overcome the fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency which are the legacy of the past.

These articles viewed equity redress as being embedded in race, gender and class. They took the view that once universities open up access across class, race and gender – for students and staff – they’re on the road to transformation. These researchers referred specifically to the inclusion and exclusion of academic staff within institutions, including through recruitment policies.

So transformation was viewed as occurring through employment equity, the reconfiguration of power structures and alternative ways of conceptualising an institution’s staff diversity profiles.

4. Transformation through access

Three of the articles argued that access is a prerequisite for successful transformation in higher education. These articles contended that access was shaped by contextual and personal forces. In these arguments, specific reference was made to the access of black women academics. The articles also discussed the access to tertiary education of underprepared students.

These students struggled with language barriers or literacy challenges. They often battled to read and write in the language of instruction.

Shortcomings in research

These national research trends give close attention to the structural and ideological dimensions that shape transformation. This focus echoes the issues articulated in national policy.

The research trends we uncovered address some crucial aspects of transformation. But they fall short in three critical ways: internationalisation, interdisciplinary contributions and embracing transformation’s inherent complexity.

In higher education, internationalisation refers to universities crossing borders to attain certain academic, economic, political and cultural aims. It is the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the core activities of higher education – teaching, learning, research and community engagement.

Internationalisation is necessary to broaden the discourse around transformation.

It’s also crucial that research in higher education should look beyond the education discipline alone. It needs to include input from other disciplines. The value of interdisciplinary research and education is that it increases competitiveness: knowledge creation and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines. It also helps to ensure better educational programmes, which then improves students’ ability to work in a problem-oriented way.

Finally, embracing the complexity of transformation – understanding it as as a fluid open-ended construct rather than a static notion that is only focused on demographic changes – would help to bring about profound changes in the higher education domain.

If these approaches are given more attention in future research, South Africa’s policies can be greatly improved. This could make transformation in higher education tangible rather than just a pipe dream.

The Conversation

Anné H. Verhoef, Associate Professor in Philosophy, North-West University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share