How justified are the criticisms of bias against the OECD's global competence framework?

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal of Educational Development Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.103258
Izzettin Aydogan , Osman Tat
{"title":"How justified are the criticisms of bias against the OECD's global competence framework?","authors":"Izzettin Aydogan ,&nbsp;Osman Tat","doi":"10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.103258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In psychometric terms, bias is defined as the failure to ensure the psychological equivalence of the latent traits and related items intended to be measured by measurement procedures for different groups and therefore the measurements produce results in favor of or against at least one group. There has been both public and scientific criticism that it contains bias in terms of some features such as the OECD's global competence framework is designed according to the principles of the western liberal tradition, that students interpret words and expressions in some items differently, that their understanding of poverty and privilege is limited, and that students' lack of access to communication tools due to socio-economic conditions. In this research, we examined whether the OECD's global competence framework presented to students in the PISA 2018 assessment is statistically biased in terms of sociological features that encompass and even go beyond criticisms of the framework. In this context, we used six international classification indices and analyzed data on around 143 thousand students from 27 PISA participating countries. We believe that results will clarify criticisms of bias in the OECD's global competence framework.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48004,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Educational Development","volume":"114 ","pages":"Article 103258"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Educational Development","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059325000562","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In psychometric terms, bias is defined as the failure to ensure the psychological equivalence of the latent traits and related items intended to be measured by measurement procedures for different groups and therefore the measurements produce results in favor of or against at least one group. There has been both public and scientific criticism that it contains bias in terms of some features such as the OECD's global competence framework is designed according to the principles of the western liberal tradition, that students interpret words and expressions in some items differently, that their understanding of poverty and privilege is limited, and that students' lack of access to communication tools due to socio-economic conditions. In this research, we examined whether the OECD's global competence framework presented to students in the PISA 2018 assessment is statistically biased in terms of sociological features that encompass and even go beyond criticisms of the framework. In this context, we used six international classification indices and analyzed data on around 143 thousand students from 27 PISA participating countries. We believe that results will clarify criticisms of bias in the OECD's global competence framework.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对经合组织全球能力框架存在偏见的批评有多合理?
在心理测量学术语中,偏差被定义为未能确保潜在特征和相关项目的心理等效,这些潜在特征和相关项目是通过测量程序对不同群体进行测量的,因此测量产生的结果至少有利于或反对一个群体。公众和科学界都有批评,认为它在某些方面存在偏见,比如经合组织的全球能力框架是根据西方自由主义传统的原则设计的,学生对某些项目中的单词和表达的解释不同,他们对贫困和特权的理解有限,以及由于社会经济条件,学生缺乏获得沟通工具的机会。在这项研究中,我们研究了经合组织在2018年PISA评估中向学生展示的全球能力框架在社会学特征方面是否存在统计偏差,这些特征包括甚至超越了对框架的批评。在此背景下,我们使用了六个国际分类指数,并分析了来自27个PISA参与国的约14.3万名学生的数据。我们认为,研究结果将澄清对经合组织全球能力框架存在偏见的批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Educational Development
International Journal of Educational Development EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: The purpose of the International Journal of Educational Development is to foster critical debate about the role that education plays in development. IJED seeks both to develop new theoretical insights into the education-development relationship and new understandings of the extent and nature of educational change in diverse settings. It stresses the importance of understanding the interplay of local, national, regional and global contexts and dynamics in shaping education and development. Orthodox notions of development as being about growth, industrialisation or poverty reduction are increasingly questioned. There are competing accounts that stress the human dimensions of development.
期刊最新文献
Compassion-based social, emotional, and ethical learning in Urban Indian classrooms: Insights from a large-scale implementation in two major cities of Maharashtra, India Socioeconomic achievement gap in Taiwan: The impact of COVID-19 on math performance Experiential learning in postgraduate education: Fostering professional skills and entrepreneurial mindsets To be who I want to be: Understanding refugee families’ perspective of education through the human capability lens Türkiye’s Developmentalist and Affective Reach into the Global South: Fostering Cooperation via Higher Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1