Unpacking equity. Educational equity in secondary analyses of international large-scale assessments: A systematic review

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research Review Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100494
Lies Appels, Sven De Maeyer, Jerich Faddar , Peter Van Petegem
{"title":"Unpacking equity. Educational equity in secondary analyses of international large-scale assessments: A systematic review","authors":"Lies Appels,&nbsp;Sven De Maeyer,&nbsp;Jerich Faddar ,&nbsp;Peter Van Petegem","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The discourse of educational equity has captured public imagination and become an entrenched policy value. In the attendant struggle to improve educational equity, governments draw inspiration from analyses based on data from highly standardized, international large-scale assessments. As these analyses are used as a lever for policy formulation, it is important to understand how this concept of equity is appropriated. Lacking a synthesis of how equity is conceptualized and operationalized in this body of research, the current paper seeks to fill that gap by presenting a </span>systematic review. Our analysis incorporates an identification of operational patterns and an exploration regarding the linguistic elements for defining equity. We chart the theoretical and methodological diversity among interpretations of equity, as clustered into five major research approaches. In light of these results, benefits and limitations of the concept's complexity are discussed and implications for research are forwarded.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":"38 ","pages":"Article 100494"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X2200063X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The discourse of educational equity has captured public imagination and become an entrenched policy value. In the attendant struggle to improve educational equity, governments draw inspiration from analyses based on data from highly standardized, international large-scale assessments. As these analyses are used as a lever for policy formulation, it is important to understand how this concept of equity is appropriated. Lacking a synthesis of how equity is conceptualized and operationalized in this body of research, the current paper seeks to fill that gap by presenting a systematic review. Our analysis incorporates an identification of operational patterns and an exploration regarding the linguistic elements for defining equity. We chart the theoretical and methodological diversity among interpretations of equity, as clustered into five major research approaches. In light of these results, benefits and limitations of the concept's complexity are discussed and implications for research are forwarded.

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
解封股本。国际大规模评估的二次分析中的教育公平:系统综述
关于教育公平的讨论吸引了公众的想象力,并成为一种根深蒂固的政策价值观。在随之而来的改善教育公平的斗争中,各国政府从基于高度标准化的国际大规模评估数据的分析中汲取灵感。由于这些分析被用作制定政策的杠杆,因此了解公平概念是如何被利用的很重要。由于缺乏对公平在这一研究机构中如何概念化和操作化的综合,本文试图通过系统综述来填补这一空白。我们的分析包括对操作模式的识别和对定义公平的语言元素的探索。我们绘制了公平解释的理论和方法多样性图,分为五种主要的研究方法。根据这些结果,讨论了概念复杂性的好处和局限性,并提出了对研究的启示。
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
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
期刊最新文献
Data literacy of principals in K–12 school contexts: A systematic review Conceptualization, measurement, predictors, outcomes, and interventions in digital parenting research: A comprehensive umbrella review A meta-analysis of the correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher resilience: Concerted growth and contextual variance Unveiling the competencies at the core of lifelong learning: A systematic literature review A systematic review on how educators teach AI in K-12 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:481959085
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