1. Writing Subject Level TEF in Biomedical Sciences
Kim Greenwood and Sal Jarvis

2. Context
UH Context
Ten Schools: Biomedical Science is in the School of Life and Medical Sciences
Students: 579 on Biosciences Programme across 5 pathways Biomedical Science.
50% BME, over 50% female, 14% mature.
Subject Level Pilot
In model B pilot – but also entered TEF3 – this was quite hard work!
Twenty three subjects in the mix in the subject level pilot
Biomedical Science subject featured under Subjects Allied to Medicine – not Biosciences

3. The UH approach to Subject Level TEF
To work at a central and a local level simultaneously. Used local teams with a core team (made up of representatives from local teams and a subject level central team)
We appointed critical friends to each group, to support and challenge teams, and to maintain a connection with the ‘big picture’ being developed at UH.
We made additional central administration support available, to help with the teaching intensity survey or other administration.
There were different levels of activity going on:
At university level – for example Careers and Employment service
At School level – for example Academic Support Units
At programme level – for example Research Informed Teaching activity
“Knitting” these together was a real challenge!

4. UH Biosciences Programme
TEF Category
Natural Sciences
Biosciences
Biological Science
Molecular Biology
Biochemistry
Medical and Health Sciences
Subjects Allied to Medicine
Pharmacology
Biomedical
Science

5. Understanding the metrics
Broadly speaking, (we aren’t allowed to share the actual data) metrics demonstrated strengths in continuation and graduate employment.
Assessment and feedback and – in one subject area – employment or further study were less strong.
Biomedical Science metrics were buried in Subjects Allied to Medicine – had to look at university data and trends to understand the picture.
The task was to demonstrate what we did to enable the excellent student outcomes, and how we were working on areas that were less strong.

6. What made the difference?
Qualitative Input
What made the difference?
Placements
Symposium
Varied employers
for placements
45% of graduates leave with recognised work experience
Career development features throughout the programme
Employment

7. What made the difference?
Qualitative Input
What made the difference?
Trend showed this
had actually improved
Working with students to adjust assessment templates
Feedback from external sources
Anonymous marking and review of return dates
Assessment and Feedback

8. Reflections
Connect your story to your university vision, values and strategy
Be confident and positive about your programmes
Review initiatives – demonstrate impact
Involve people – include staff and students at all levels
Challenge yourselves – and find a critical friend!
Understand your data from institution to programme level - & then interrogate the metrics
Use the experience to improve your programmes to review good practice.

9. Be positive about your programme
“Being able to meet with staff who are passionate about their subject and their research and can translate that enthusiasm and teach effectively. Working on assignments that have allowed me to discover some really interesting research. Meeting students who are like-minded and driven. Being able to witness the university grow so much over the past few years and become an institution I'm proud to have attended. Biomedical Science student, NSS “

10. Vision + data + actions + impact = story
And finally….
Vision + data + actions + impact = story
Quote to include from submission:

11. Acknowledgements
Dr Pryank Patel – Provided the Biosciences narratives to feed into submissions.
Sarah Flynn – Natural Sciences Submission
Dr Shivani Sharma – Medical & Health Sciences Submission
Dr Frank Haddleton – (Director of AQ) SL-TEF support