Teaching Excellence Framework

(TEF) 2023

Summary TEF 2023 panel statement

University of Wolverhampton

1
Summary of outcomes

Overall: Bronze
Typically, the experience students have at University of Wolverhampton and the outcomes it
leads to are high quality, and there are some very high quality features.

Student experience: Bronze Student outcomes: Bronze

The student academic experience is Student outcomes are typically high quality,
typically high quality, and there are some and there are some very high quality
very high quality features. features.

Very high quality features include: Very high quality features include:

• teaching, feedback and assessment • the provider supports students to

practices that are effective in succeed in and beyond their studies
supporting students' learning,
progression, and attainment • very high rates of successful
progression for the provider’s
• course content and delivery students and courses
effectively encourage students to
engage in their learning, and stretch • the provider articulates the
students to develop their knowledge educational gains it intends its
and skills students to achieve, and why these
gains are relevant.
• very high quality support for staff
professional development and
promotion of excellent academic
practice

• the provider fosters a supportive

learning environment, and its
students have access to a readily
available range of very high quality
academic support.

2
About the assessment
The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is a national scheme run by the Office for Students
(OfS) that aims to encourage universities and colleges (providers) to improve and deliver excellent
teaching, learning and student outcomes.

The TEF does this by assessing and rating providers for excellence above the high quality baseline
that we expect from all providers. It covers undergraduate courses.

Throughout this document, we use the terms ‘outstanding’ and ‘very high quality’, which are
defined in terms of the TEF 2023 assessment as follows:

• ‘outstanding’: the quality of the student experience or outcomes are among the very best in
the sector, for the mix of students and courses taught by a provider

• ‘very high quality’: the quality of the student experience or outcomes are materially above
the relevant high quality minimum requirements, for the mix of students and courses taught
by a provider.

The assessment was carried out in 2022-23 by the TEF Panel, a panel of academics and students
who are experts in learning and teaching. This document sets out a summary of the panel’s
findings and judgements.

The panel reviewed the following evidence:

• numerical indicators produced by the OfS, using national datasets

• a submission made by the provider, setting out its own evidence

• a submission made by the provider’s students, setting out students’ views.

The panel applied its expert judgement to:

• identify particular features of the student experience and student outcomes that are
excellent (above the high quality baseline requirements)

• decide a rating for the ‘student experience’ and for ‘student outcomes’

• decide an overall rating for the provider.

Throughout the assessment the panel took account of the context of the provider and judged how
well it delivers teaching, learning and student outcomes for its mix of students and courses.

In making its decisions the panel took account of the OfS general duties and the public sector
equalities duty.

3
Summary of panel assessment
Information about this provider
The University of Wolverhampton describes itself as the ‘University of Opportunity’. Its education
strategy sets out its ambitions for student’s experience and outcomes, with three key themes of
access, belonging and achievement.

The provider is engaged in a range of partnerships to widen participation in higher education.

These include franchise activity with local colleges, partnerships with NHS Trusts, and other
organisations. Courses are delivered at three main campuses: Wolverhampton, Walsall, and
Telford.

The provider has around 13,000 undergraduate full-time students, predominantly studying first
degree courses. Part-time student numbers were around 1,000 and fell in number during the
assessment period. The number of sub-contracted students was relatively small throughout the
period.

Provision is across a broad range of subjects, with the largest numbers of full-time students
studying Nursing and Midwifery (14.3 per cent), Business and Management (12.7 per cent), and
Health and social care (10.7 per cent).

The provider statement notes that a large proportion of students are from the Black Country sub-
region and a significant proportion remain there after graduation. This area has a number of
significant socio-economic features including fewer graduate jobs than the national average. The
provider notes that reflecting the population of the area in which they are based, they have a strong
track record of recruiting global majority students. They also have consistently high numbers of
mature students, with 16.3 per cent of students aged 31 or over during the assessment period.

Other student characteristics include 34.5 per cent of students having been eligible for free school
meals, and 83.7 per cent with no reported disability. White students make up 43.2 per cent, 23.1
per cent are black, 20.6 per cent are Asian and 5.7 per cent report their ethnicity as mixed.

The assessment considered information about the provider’s undergraduate courses and students
on those courses.

Full details about the provider’s student demographics used in the TEF 2023 assessment are
available at www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/data-used-in-tef-2023/.

More information about this provider can be found on the OfS Register at
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/the-register/the-ofs-register/.

4
Student experience: Bronze
Throughout this section, we refer to indicators. These indicators are based on students’ responses
to the National Student Survey. The indicators are ‘benchmarked’ to show how well the provider
performs for its particular mix of students and courses.

Across the student experience aspect, the panel found:

• five features are very high quality for some groups of students

• there was not enough evidence to judge two features as very high quality.

The panel applied the criteria and found the ‘best fit’ rating to be ‘Bronze’. This is because most
features of the aspect are very high quality for some groups of students, consistent with a rating of
‘Bronze’. The panel did not think that the best fit was ‘Silver’ because it did not identify that ‘all’
features were very high quality for ‘most’ groups of students or that ‘most’ features were very high
quality for ‘all’ groups of students.

The panel’s assessment of the student outcomes features is set out below.

Teaching, assessment, and feedback

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

The indicators for ‘teaching on my course’ provided evidence of very high quality provision for full-
time students and evidence of outstanding provision for part-time students.

The indicators for ‘assessment and feedback’ provided evidence of very high quality provision for
full-time students and evidence of outstanding provision for part-time students.

Evidence in the provider submission includes:

• a commitment to inclusive assessment, which includes introducing more opportunities for

students to have choices in relation to their assessment

• the development of digital resources to support student assessment and effective feedback
practices

• a review of assessment methods following the coronavirus pandemic.

The panel judged that there was insufficient evidence that the policies and practices
described have an impact on the educational experience of students, and that they are effective in
relation to the provider’s mix of students and courses.

The student submission provides evidence of positive ratings for feedback, but notes
dissatisfaction of global majority students relating to their experiences of placement and curriculum
in nursing. The panel judged that this may indicate that the reach of very high quality teaching
practices have not been embedded in all provision.

5
Overall, the panel concluded that the provider has embedded very high quality teaching, feedback
and assessment practices that are effective in supporting its students' learning, progression, and
attainment. They judged this to be a very high quality feature.

Course content and delivery; student engagement in learning and stretch

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

The panel considered the provider’s commitment to extend educational opportunity outlined in
strategies noted above, and also the statistical evidence relating to the ‘teaching on my course and
‘assessment and feedback’ indicators which provided evidence of very high and outstanding
quality, as described above.

The provider submission includes reference to an inclusive framework for curriculum design and
delivery introduced in 2020. The framework underpins all curriculum development and is designed
to ensure an inclusive curriculum is provided to all students. It covers academic literacies,
anticipatory learning and teaching design, blended learning, and developing an inclusive lens. The
framework is embedded through ‘inclusivity leads’ in each school, inclusivity plans, and an annual
inclusivity conference. However, the provider gave minimal further evidence relating to the impact
of these policies and practices on student academic experience.

The panel judged that course content and delivery effectively encourage the provider’s students to
engage in their learning, and stretch students to develop their knowledge and skills. Overall, they
judged this a very high quality feature.

Research, innovation, scholarship, professional practice and employer engagement

The panel judged that there was insufficient evidence of very high quality for this feature.

Evidence in the provider submission includes:

• reference to employer engagement in the curriculum including the development of a ‘screen

school’

• just over half of all undergraduate students are studying courses with Professional,
Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) accreditation.

However, the panel did not identify further significant evidence of employer engagement or
research-informed teaching contributing the academic experience of students. The panel also
found insufficient evidence relating to the scope and impact of this on student experience.

Assessing the evidence, the panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence of very high
quality provision relating to this feature.

Staff professional development and academic practice

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

Evidence in the provider submission includes:

6
 • an Advance-HE accredited Post Graduate Certificate programme that is mandatory for all
staff without a teaching qualification. The provider identifies 74 per cent of academic staff
have Advance HE Fellowship

• new teaching staff receive ‘essentials of the classroom’ training which introduces them to
what is distinct about the provider

• between 20 and 70 staff have achieved Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education
Academy throughout the assessment period. There is also support for professional services
staff to gain fellowship

• courses develop staff digital skills. While the reach of these schemes was not provided,
evidence shows this has led to good rates of student satisfaction with online learning.

The panel identified that while there was evidence that professional development is promoted
across the provider, it was judged that work to embed this is in progress. Overall, the panel was
satisfied that there is very high quality support for staff professional development and excellent
academic practice is promoted. The panel judged that this is a very high quality feature.

Learning environment and academic support

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

The panel considered that the ‘academic support’ indicators provided some evidence of very high
quality provision for full-time students. The indicators also provided some evidence of outstanding
provision for part-time students. The panel took account of the relative size of different groups of
students when weighing this evidence.

Provider submission evidence includes:

• the redesign of student support in 2021/22 to improve the delivery of academic support to
students

• an academic coaching scheme. There is a statistically positive relationship between

engagement with this scheme and continuation rates, however evidence on the reach of the
scheme, evaluation methodology, and size of this impact are not provided

• A new Student Transition Teacher role that was introduced in 2020/21 and is identified as
improving maths support. Evidence is not provided however on the evaluation of this role.

• wellbeing support for students and hardship support is noted, which aims to support
students’ academic experience

• an engagement and attendance policy which has led to a 9 per cent increase in attendance.

The student submission identifies issues relating to the academic experience of some international
students, mature students, and students with disabilities. Some issues were also noted relating to
access to student support. Some positive experiences of academic support during the coronavirus
pandemic were reported, which may indicate that the quality of academic support is not consistent
for all groups of students.
7
Assessing the evidence, the panel judged that the provider fosters a supportive learning
environment, and its students have access to a readily available range of very high quality
academic support. Overall they judged this a very high quality feature.

Learning resources

The panel judged this a very high quality feature.

Overall, the panel considered that the indicators for ‘learning resources’ provided some evidence of
very high quality provision for full-time students, and some evidence of outstanding provision for
part-time students. The panel took account of the relative size of different groups of students in
weighing this evidence.

Evidence in the provider submission includes:

• investment in provision of e-books through the Kortext Platform, with evidence provided of
reach and engagement

• provision of study support through the Skills for Learning Team, though no evidence is
provided on the reach of this team or impact of their interventions

• specialist facilities including investment in simulated learning facilities, laboratories, and

creative arts learning spaces

• support to address student digital poverty following an assessment of students’ digital

access in 2020/21, which has included a revised laptop loan scheme and Wi-Fi dongles.

The student submission identifies that some students experienced issues relating to timetabling
and access to WIFI.

The panel considered that physical and virtual learning resources are used effectively to support
very high quality teaching and learning, and that overall this is a very high quality feature.

Student engagement in improvement

The panel judged that there was insufficient evidence of very high quality for this feature.

The ‘student voice’ indicators provided some evidence of very high quality provision for full-time
students, and some evidence of outstanding provision for part-time students. The panel took
account of the relative size of different groups of students in weighing this evidence.

Provider submission evidence includes examples such as student representation on provider

committees and Student Liberation Reps to ensure underrepresented voices are represented.
However, there was limited evidence that these policies and practices were effective in leading to
improvements in the experience and outcomes of students.

The student submission includes a statement by sabbatical officers that on a number of occasions
they have felt that their voice has not been heard when they have engaged with the provider.

The panel recognised that while some structures of representation are in place, it also considered
the feedback from students reported directly in the indicators, and the evidence in the student

8
submission which related directly to the quality of provider engagement with student
representatives. Overall, the panel concluded there was insufficient evidence that the provider
effectively engages students, leading to improvements to their experiences and outcomes.

Student outcomes: Bronze

Throughout this section, we refer to indicators. The indicators for continuation, completion and
progression rates are based on national data about higher education students. The indicators are
‘benchmarked’ to show how well the provider performs for its particular mix of students and
courses.

The panel found typically high quality outcomes across all student groups and subject areas, with
evidence of very high quality for some groups. Across the student outcomes aspect the panel
found:

• three features are very high quality

• there was not enough evidence to judge three features to be very high quality.

The panel judged that the best fit for student outcomes was ‘Bronze’. This was because most
features of this aspect are very high quality for some groups of students. The panel did not think
that the best fit was ‘Silver’ because it did not identify that ‘all’ features were very high quality for
‘most’ groups of students or that ‘most’ features were very high quality for ‘all’ groups of students.

The panel’s assessment of the student outcomes features is set out below.

Approaches to supporting student success

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

Provider submission evidence includes:

• a Continuous Monitoring and Improvement process that uses a range of data to review all
courses and identify interventions to improve outcomes, and a Subject Review process
which considers data including continuation rates

• the introduction of an attendance monitoring scheme in 2021/22, with additional

interventions to support international students

• a focus during the coronavirus pandemic on keeping students continuing with their studies,
rather than ‘timely progression’

• careers advice and support for students, with a prioritisation of courses with lower rates of
graduate employment and negative gaps for global majority students

• all courses are required to provide opportunities for work experience, though evidence was
not given on the uptake of these opportunities by students

• subject level support in subjects including law, healthcare, and chemistry.

9
The student submission identified some student dissatisfaction with the quality of employability
support and some variability in the quality of employability support reported.

The panel judged that the provider supports students to succeed in and beyond their studies, and
that overall this is a very high quality feature.

Continuation and completion rates

The panel judged that there was insufficient evidence of very high quality for this feature.

The indicators for ‘completion’ provide evidence of very high quality provision for full-time students,
and some evidence of outstanding provision for part-time students.

The indicators for ‘continuation’ provide evidence of very high quality provision for part-time
students, however for full-time students the indicators provided insufficient evidence of very high
quality. The panel took account of the relative size of different groups of students in weighing this
evidence.

The provider submission states that they expanded recruitment of international students studying
Business. These students were disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and this
had a negative impact on their continuation. The panel considered how much this may
contextualise the outcomes for continuation and completion, but found limited evidence on the
policies and practices put in place to mitigate the impact on international students.

Overall, the panel considered that there was insufficient evidence that the provider has very high
rates of continuation and completion. They judged that there was insufficient evidence that this is a
very high quality feature.

Progression rates

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

The indicators for ‘progression’ for full-time and part-time students provide evidence of very high
quality ‘progression’.

The panel considered evidence in the provider submission relating to the local economy and the
post-study geographical patterns of student employment, and the extent to which these may
impact the indicator data. Overall, the panel judged that there are very high rates of successful
progression for the provider’s students and courses, and that this is a very high quality feature.

Intended educational gains

The panel judged this to be a very high quality feature.

The provider submission provides an articulation of educational gain, with strong evidence that this
is aligned to the mission of the provider as the ‘University of Opportunity’. The provider states that
it is committed to providing flexible routes into and through higher education for a diverse student
population. The panel considered that the statement of educational gain is relevant to the
provider’s mix of students and takes account of the diverse characteristics of the student
population and patterns of prior educational disadvantage.

10
Overall, the panel concluded that the provider articulates the educational gains it intends its
students to achieve, and why these gains are relevant, and therefore judged this to be a very high
quality feature.

Approaches to supporting educational gains

The panel judged that there was insufficient evidence of very high quality for this feature.

The panel found insufficient evidence that there are effective policies and practices to support
students in achieving educational gains, beyond the evidence relating to other features of
excellence considered. Overall the panel found insufficient evidence that this is a very high quality
feature.

Evaluation and demonstration of educational gains

The panel judged that there was insufficient evidence of very high quality for this feature.

The provider submission includes evidence of graduate exit surveys which identified gains in self-
confidence and life satisfaction. However, there was insufficient evidence that this measurement is
embedded in policies and practice, and insufficient evidence that the surveys assess educational
gain as articulated by the provider.

Overall, the panel concluded there was insufficient evidence that the provider evaluates the gains
made by its students, and therefore judged that there was insufficient evidence that this is a very
high quality feature.

Overall: Bronze
The panel judged that the rating for student experience was ‘Bronze’ and the rating for student
outcomes was ‘Bronze’.

Considering the overall evidence, the panel concludes that the best fit is ‘Bronze’. This is because
there is evidence that student experiences and outcomes are typically high quality, and there are
some very high quality features within both aspects.

11