The TEF topic is rolling again (in a way)

The idea of ​​a thematic TEF is pretty much dead at this stage.

It already feels like a fever dream from the dark days of the Williamson era.

Regular TEFDespite a clever redesign inspired by Shirley Pearce and her name Quality and Standards Excellence Framework, it now takes more account of the institutional context and is much less influenced by the vagaries of data collection. Mind you, apart from a few vice-chancellors with pots of gold paint, it would be hard to deny that the latest iteration has left a significant mark on the sector.

The institutional value comes primarily from the process of writing the dissertations. This kind of reflective practice is in itself extremely valuable, regardless of the outcomes. The simple fact that the TEF sparks discussions about teaching and student support within universities and colleges is the best argument for keeping it.

While the underlying statistics are now less important, they contain a lot of value that can start these conversations (and those related to B3 and the student experience).

TEF subject (Taylors version)

In late 2023, I had the idea to launch my own thematic TEF, to help providers understand the differences between the different parts of their undergraduate education.

The first version was presented exclusively to a group of vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors convened by Advance HE. What fascinated me about the experience was how senior managers already understand the issues, but could be prompted by data like this in the public domain to talk and think about the implications in a remarkably frank and thoughtful way.

An improved version of this presentation was published on Wonkhe in December 2023. I have heard from readers that it has been widely and usefully used to improve quality and that it also helps people understand how fractional metrics work in TEF.

There will not be another TEF until 2027, and there may never be another. But every year, Student Office publishes TEF dataAnd frankly, it would be rude not to.

This version of the TEF is purely data-driven. Here’s how it works.

• I stole the flags original TEF concept one standard deviation above the reference on each indicator is a single flag[+]two would be a double flag[++] (below the benchmark gives me only one[-] or double[] negative flag). I transformed them into flag scores for each sub-reward: [++] is 2, [] is minus 2 and so on. This was made much more palatable by the OfS's decision not to publish standard deviations this time. I had to calculate them myself from the confidence intervals provided (at 95%).
• If there is no data for a field of activity at a supplier, even for a single flag, I threw it out of competition.
• For the Student results sub-award (covering continuation, completion and progression) three or more positive indicators (or the indicator score equivalent to [+++] or more) gives you a gold medal, three or more negative flags or the equivalent gives you a bronze medal. Otherwise, you are in silver (there are no points to improve in this game)
• For the Student experience sub-reward, the equivalent of a flag score of seven or more positive flags gives you a gold medal, seven or more negative flags gives you a bronze medal.
• GenerallyIf you get at least one gold medal, you are a gold medalist overall, but if you get at least one bronze medal, you are a bronze medalist overall. Otherwise, you get a silver medal.
• There are different rewards for full-time, part-time and apprenticeship job offers. In the past you got your dominant mode, here you have a choice (although as above, if there is no data on a single indicator you get no reward).

The big change from last time is the addition of two additional indicators on student experience. The organization and management and learning opportunities scales join the original five sets of NSS results. This change is related to the way the NSS has been redesigned, and I think this is the first time we've heard of it.

Here is the sector version which allows you to consult all the results in a particular field:

[Full screen]

And here is a vendor-level version, for all domains of a vendor:

[Full screen]

This is simply an exercise based on the published data. If a more user-friendly and impactful presentation encourages more people to dig deeper into this data, that makes me happy.