Pub Date : 2020-05-18DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1924790
C. Cascella
ABSTRACT Students’ attainment in mathematics is associated with several personal and contextual factors, but little research has been carried out to explore the intersectionality between them. The current paper aims to fill this gap. Census assessment data collected in Italy at Grade 10 (on average, 15-year-old students) by the Italian national institute for the evaluation of the educational system were analysed via a multilevel regression model to account for data hierarchy (422,865 students in 24,279 classrooms, in 3,950 schools). Census data in educational research allowed exploration of the intersectionality between independent variables at different levels of the model’s hierarchy. Results showed that reading skills mediate the relationship between students’ attainment in mathematics and their gender, citizenship status, and socioeconomic status (SES). Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
{"title":"Exploring the complex relationship between students’ reading skills and their performance in mathematics: a population-based study","authors":"C. Cascella","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1924790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1924790","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Students’ attainment in mathematics is associated with several personal and contextual factors, but little research has been carried out to explore the intersectionality between them. The current paper aims to fill this gap. Census assessment data collected in Italy at Grade 10 (on average, 15-year-old students) by the Italian national institute for the evaluation of the educational system were analysed via a multilevel regression model to account for data hierarchy (422,865 students in 24,279 classrooms, in 3,950 schools). Census data in educational research allowed exploration of the intersectionality between independent variables at different levels of the model’s hierarchy. Results showed that reading skills mediate the relationship between students’ attainment in mathematics and their gender, citizenship status, and socioeconomic status (SES). Implications for policy and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1924790","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44951809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-18DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1944998
Keith Morrison, G. P. van der Werf
The search for reliable and valid evidence from research in education concerning the “truth” of a matter is neither easy nor straightforward. What can we safely take from research findings? What kinds of studies can yield the most reliable and valid evidence? Do we go for close-grained detail or an overall generalization? How selective and biased are we in sifting through evidence and what it tells us? How much do we project our own tastes onto data and our interpretation of the messages coming from them? How can we overcome bias? The opening pages of Silver’s volume The Signal and the Noise (2012) include a disturbing and potentially disruptive comment. He argues that we live in an age when information floods out faster than we can cope with, and so, to survive, we look at it selectively and subjectively, mindless of the “distortions” of the “truth” that such behaviour risks (p. 17). Silver’s message reinforces Kahneman’s (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow, in which Kahneman indicates that, whilst “humans are not irrational” (p. 411), they often need help in making more accurate and rational judgements, decisions, and choices. We tend to see what we want to see, and we quietly, subconsciously look for information that will support our preconceptions and preferences, even if this contradicts what the evidence is actually telling us. None of this is new; consider Jane Austen’s quip in her novel Persuasion: “How quick come the reasons for approving what we like” (Austen, 1818/1993, p. 12). It is easy to mistake the “truth”. Add to this phenomenon Silver’s (2012) comment that the “truth” is the “signal” which arises out of the “noise”, whilst “noise” is that which “distracts us” from such “truth” (p. 17). “Noise” comprises contextual material and, indeed, research methods. But in the variable-dense, highly contingent, setting-specific, context-rich, conditional, and person-dependent world of education, how acceptable is it to consign contexts to being somehow separate, separable from, or somehow lesser than “signals” and “truths”. What if the reverse of Silver’s claim turns out to be the “truth”, and that, in reality, contextual “noise” is actually the “signal” that we should accept? How rational is it to seek and separate the “signal” from contextual “noise” in educational research? Surely research in education includes context as part of the “signal”? There is a compelling argument that suggests that research findings in education are, and should be, inescapably and symbiotically, constitutionally, wedded to context, contextually rooted in it and referenced to it. As the review of Biesta’s (2020) book Educational Research: An Unorthodox Introduction notes in this issue, researchers in education must “recover the constituent features of educational aspects of educational research: what makes educational research specifically educational”. Moreover, the conjectural nature of science makes it clear that what happens to come out of the “noise” of specific
从教育研究中寻找关于事物“真相”的可靠和有效的证据既不容易也不直接。我们可以安全地从研究结果中得出什么结论?什么样的研究可以产生最可靠和有效的证据?我们是追求细致的细节，还是追求整体的概括?我们在筛选证据和它告诉我们的东西时有多挑剔和偏见?我们在多大程度上把自己的品味投射到数据上，以及我们对来自数据的信息的解读上?我们如何克服偏见?西尔弗的《信号与噪音》(The Signal and The Noise, 2012)一书的开头几页包含了一条令人不安的、可能具有破坏性的评论。他认为，我们生活在一个信息泛滥速度超过我们应对能力的时代，因此，为了生存，我们有选择地、主观地看待信息，而不顾这种行为可能造成的“真相”的“扭曲”(第17页)。Silver的观点强化了Kahneman(2011)的《Thinking Fast and Slow》，Kahneman在书中指出，虽然“人类不是非理性的”(第411页)，但他们在做出更准确、更理性的判断、决策和选择时往往需要帮助。我们倾向于看到我们想看到的东西，我们悄悄地、下意识地寻找能够支持我们先入为主的观念和偏好的信息，即使这与证据实际告诉我们的相矛盾。这些都不是新鲜事;想想简·奥斯汀在她的小说《劝导》中的妙语:“赞成我们喜欢的东西的理由多快啊”(奥斯汀，1818/1993，第12页)。人们很容易误解“真相”。对于这一现象，西尔弗(2012)的评论是，“真相”是从“噪音”中产生的“信号”，而“噪音”是“分散我们”对这种“真相”的注意力(第17页)。“噪音”包括语境材料和研究方法。但是，在变量密集、高度偶然、特定设置、上下文丰富、有条件和个人依赖的教育世界中，将上下文与“信号”和“真理”分开、可分离或比“信号”和“真理”小得多，这是如何被接受的呢?如果西尔弗主张的反面被证明是“真相”，而实际上，语境“噪音”实际上是我们应该接受的“信号”，那该怎么办?在教育研究中，从语境的“噪音”中寻找和分离“信号”有多理性?教育研究当然包括语境作为“信号”的一部分吗?有一个令人信服的论点表明，教育方面的研究成果是，也应该是，不可避免地，共生地，从本质上，与背景结合在一起，在背景中扎根并参考它。正如Biesta(2020)的《教育研究:非正统导论》(Educational Research: An non - orthodox Introduction)的书评在本期中所指出的那样，教育研究人员必须“恢复教育研究的教育方面的构成特征:是什么使教育研究具有特殊的教育意义”。此外，科学的推测性本质清楚地表明，从特定研究的“噪音”中产生的东西——“信号”——既不是无可争议的，也不是绝对的“真理”。科学“真理”的临时性质(即我们目前所知道的最好的)只是一个暂定的、最好是有证据的“最佳选择”(Major & Higgins, 2019)。非情境化的教育研究数据是否能够将教育工作者从情境的泥潭中解放出来?我们应该选择小规模、高粒度的游戏吗
{"title":"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth","authors":"Keith Morrison, G. P. van der Werf","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1944998","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1944998","url":null,"abstract":"The search for reliable and valid evidence from research in education concerning the “truth” of a matter is neither easy nor straightforward. What can we safely take from research findings? What kinds of studies can yield the most reliable and valid evidence? Do we go for close-grained detail or an overall generalization? How selective and biased are we in sifting through evidence and what it tells us? How much do we project our own tastes onto data and our interpretation of the messages coming from them? How can we overcome bias? The opening pages of Silver’s volume The Signal and the Noise (2012) include a disturbing and potentially disruptive comment. He argues that we live in an age when information floods out faster than we can cope with, and so, to survive, we look at it selectively and subjectively, mindless of the “distortions” of the “truth” that such behaviour risks (p. 17). Silver’s message reinforces Kahneman’s (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow, in which Kahneman indicates that, whilst “humans are not irrational” (p. 411), they often need help in making more accurate and rational judgements, decisions, and choices. We tend to see what we want to see, and we quietly, subconsciously look for information that will support our preconceptions and preferences, even if this contradicts what the evidence is actually telling us. None of this is new; consider Jane Austen’s quip in her novel Persuasion: “How quick come the reasons for approving what we like” (Austen, 1818/1993, p. 12). It is easy to mistake the “truth”. Add to this phenomenon Silver’s (2012) comment that the “truth” is the “signal” which arises out of the “noise”, whilst “noise” is that which “distracts us” from such “truth” (p. 17). “Noise” comprises contextual material and, indeed, research methods. But in the variable-dense, highly contingent, setting-specific, context-rich, conditional, and person-dependent world of education, how acceptable is it to consign contexts to being somehow separate, separable from, or somehow lesser than “signals” and “truths”. What if the reverse of Silver’s claim turns out to be the “truth”, and that, in reality, contextual “noise” is actually the “signal” that we should accept? How rational is it to seek and separate the “signal” from contextual “noise” in educational research? Surely research in education includes context as part of the “signal”? There is a compelling argument that suggests that research findings in education are, and should be, inescapably and symbiotically, constitutionally, wedded to context, contextually rooted in it and referenced to it. As the review of Biesta’s (2020) book Educational Research: An Unorthodox Introduction notes in this issue, researchers in education must “recover the constituent features of educational aspects of educational research: what makes educational research specifically educational”. Moreover, the conjectural nature of science makes it clear that what happens to come out of the “noise” of specific ","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1944998","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45597806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-18DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1920212
K. Morrison
This book is a volume in which, without offence to the poet Yeats, “the ceremony of innocence is drowned”. Like it or not, educational research is inescapably not innocent; it is embedded in, and c...
{"title":"Educational research: an unorthodox introduction","authors":"K. Morrison","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1920212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1920212","url":null,"abstract":"This book is a volume in which, without offence to the poet Yeats, “the ceremony of innocence is drowned”. Like it or not, educational research is inescapably not innocent; it is embedded in, and c...","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1920212","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42374507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1872390
Kevin Cunningham, M. Gorman, James A. Maher
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the value of using classroom observations as part of a multi-methodological approach to understand what influences student engagement in classroom settings. This action research aimed to gain insights into what influences students to participate in the classroom and was conducted in an Irish vocational agricultural college as part of an initiative aimed to enhance classroom engagement. Classroom observations were used to examine how students interact in classroom settings by observing student’s behavioural engagement as the cognitive and affective domains of engagement are more difficult to observe. The findings were triangulated and validated with data from the teacher interviews, student focus groups, and a student survey. This paper details the multi-methodological approach taken, how classroom observations were developed and used, and the value they brought to evaluate what impacted student engagement within this context.
{"title":"The value of using classroom observations as part of a multi-methodological approach to evaluate student engagement in vocational agricultural education","authors":"Kevin Cunningham, M. Gorman, James A. Maher","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1872390","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1872390","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper discusses the value of using classroom observations as part of a multi-methodological approach to understand what influences student engagement in classroom settings. This action research aimed to gain insights into what influences students to participate in the classroom and was conducted in an Irish vocational agricultural college as part of an initiative aimed to enhance classroom engagement. Classroom observations were used to examine how students interact in classroom settings by observing student’s behavioural engagement as the cognitive and affective domains of engagement are more difficult to observe. The findings were triangulated and validated with data from the teacher interviews, student focus groups, and a student survey. This paper details the multi-methodological approach taken, how classroom observations were developed and used, and the value they brought to evaluate what impacted student engagement within this context.","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1872390","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48373984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089
E. Pogorskiy
Keith Morrison’s Taming Randomized Controlled Trials in Education provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical overview of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as a source of evidence in education. This book is an important and timely contribution to the topic of evidence-based education, offering a provocative and challenging position while paying careful attention to detail and weighting key arguments for and against RCTs in educational research. Making informed and evidence-based decisions is, naturally, central to the methods of scientific investigation, and RCT as the result of an interdisciplinary effort to evaluating interventions includes practices and assumptions from and across various interacting fields. For instance, “evidence-based education” emerges from “evidence-based medicine”, as noted by Coe et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trial research design, in turn, emerged from experimental research in education and psychology (Oakley, 1998), and RCTs in medical and educational research have a range of similarities and differences, as noted by Morrison (p. 103). In the last 2 decades, attention to RCTs in education has surged. This particular research design has been implemented across a broad range of studies, including those concerned with improving learning (Elliott, 2001; C. J. Torgerson & Torgerson, 2001), supporting evidence-based policy in education (Gorard et al., 2017; Katsipataki & Higgins, 2016), and studies focusing on eliminating global poverty (Banerjee et al., 2015; Tollefson, 2015). In recent years, the superiority of RCTs has often been taken for granted and considered to be a methodological “gold standard”. Morrison, however, challenges this habitual assumption in his new book, at least when it comes to considering results from RCTs in an educational context. This book is an important contribution to resources on randomised control trials, such as those authored by D. J. Torgerson and Torgerson (2008) and Glennerster and Takavarasha (2013), which provide introductions to the topic, alongside practical advice on planning, conducting, and evaluating RCTs. Morrison’s newly published book, however, offers a unique critical perspective on RCT research design and its role
Keith Morrison的《驯服教育中的随机对照试验》提供了随机对照试验作为教育证据来源的全面理论和实践概述。这本书对循证教育这一主题做出了重要而及时的贡献，提供了一个具有挑衅性和挑战性的立场，同时在教育研究中仔细关注细节并权衡支持和反对随机对照试验的关键论点。做出知情和循证的决策自然是科学调查方法的核心，而随机对照试验作为评估干预措施的跨学科努力的结果，包括来自各个相互作用领域的实践和假设。例如，Coe等人（2000）指出，“循证教育”源于“循证医学”。随机对照试验研究设计反过来又出现在教育和心理学的实验研究中（Oakley，1998），正如Morrison所指出的，医学和教育研究中的随机对照试验有一系列相似之处和差异之处（第103页）。在过去的20年里，随机对照试验在教育中的关注度激增。这一特定的研究设计已在广泛的研究中实施，包括那些与改善学习有关的研究（Elliott，2001；C.J.Torgerson和Torgerson，2001），支持教育中的循证政策（Gorard等人，2017；Katsipataki和Higgins，2016），以及专注于消除全球贫困的研究（Banerjee等人，2015；Tollefson，2015）。近年来，随机对照试验的优越性往往被认为是理所当然的，并被认为是一种方法上的“黄金标准”。然而，Morrison在他的新书中挑战了这一习惯性假设，至少在教育背景下考虑随机对照试验的结果时是这样。这本书对随机对照试验的资源做出了重要贡献，例如D.J.Torgerson和Torgerson（2008）以及Glennerster和Takavarasha（2013）撰写的随机对照试验，这些随机对照试验介绍了该主题，并提供了关于随机对照试验规划、实施和评估的实用建议。然而，Morrison最新出版的书对随机对照试验的研究设计及其作用提供了独特的批判性视角
{"title":"Taming randomized controlled trials in education: exploring key claims, issues and debates","authors":"E. Pogorskiy","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089","url":null,"abstract":"Keith Morrison’s Taming Randomized Controlled Trials in Education provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical overview of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as a source of evidence in education. This book is an important and timely contribution to the topic of evidence-based education, offering a provocative and challenging position while paying careful attention to detail and weighting key arguments for and against RCTs in educational research. Making informed and evidence-based decisions is, naturally, central to the methods of scientific investigation, and RCT as the result of an interdisciplinary effort to evaluating interventions includes practices and assumptions from and across various interacting fields. For instance, “evidence-based education” emerges from “evidence-based medicine”, as noted by Coe et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trial research design, in turn, emerged from experimental research in education and psychology (Oakley, 1998), and RCTs in medical and educational research have a range of similarities and differences, as noted by Morrison (p. 103). In the last 2 decades, attention to RCTs in education has surged. This particular research design has been implemented across a broad range of studies, including those concerned with improving learning (Elliott, 2001; C. J. Torgerson & Torgerson, 2001), supporting evidence-based policy in education (Gorard et al., 2017; Katsipataki & Higgins, 2016), and studies focusing on eliminating global poverty (Banerjee et al., 2015; Tollefson, 2015). In recent years, the superiority of RCTs has often been taken for granted and considered to be a methodological “gold standard”. Morrison, however, challenges this habitual assumption in his new book, at least when it comes to considering results from RCTs in an educational context. This book is an important contribution to resources on randomised control trials, such as those authored by D. J. Torgerson and Torgerson (2008) and Glennerster and Takavarasha (2013), which provide introductions to the topic, alongside practical advice on planning, conducting, and evaluating RCTs. Morrison’s newly published book, however, offers a unique critical perspective on RCT research design and its role","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43357344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1912894
K. Morrison, G. P. van der Werf
Many years ago, the late internationally renowned UK educationist, Harvey Goldstein, gave a thrilling keynote lecture on assessment. He calmly, politely, andwith surgical skill, wielded his intellectual scalpel with dazzling flashes of compelling brilliance, dissecting out and demolishing the then UK government’s policy on assessment in UK schools. It was a model of its kind. He set out, analysed, evaluated, critiqued, and judged the policy. He exposed its assumptions, aporias, and underlying ideology, implications, and consequences, drawing on a range of research evidence, weighing up its pros and cons, and leaving it all in ruins on the dissecting table, to the delight and spontaneous applause of the audience. Working like a filigree jeweller, he exposed it for what it was: dogma wrapped up in high-sounding, pejorative phrases. His forecast of consequences came true. By taking a sober, cool, unemotional, dispassionate, careful, perfectly paced, and measured analysis, he enabled his scalpel to do its work, step by step, and it worked wonders. There were no histrionics or one-sided statements. Instead, he let the argument speak for itself. In Habermasian style, the unforced force of the argument prevailed, drawing on a wealth of research evidence where relevant, generating light rather than the heat of a furnace of emotional noise, and persuading by the force of the argument alone, not its temperature. The deeper that Goldstein went into his analysis, the clearer it became that here was a topic – assessment in UK schools – whose features were complex rather than simple, unstraightforward rather than easily understood, multitextured, multidimensional, and multilevelled, a contested ideological terrain in many dimensions and levels, and not to be taken at face value. His analysis was an example par excellence of how researchers in education should operate, indicating not only that they have a duty to expose and unravel the complexity of an issue but also how to do it. The four papers in this issue illustrate the importance of researchers in education opening up and analysing their fields closely and carefully, exposing the complexities of the issues with which they are working, what their evidence suggests, and what are the boundaries of what can be taken from their research. This is their task, whatever fields of focus, methodologies, and methods they employ. For example, in this issue, Cunningham, Gorman, and Maher report action research using observational approaches to study student engagement, noting that “student engagement is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon”, and they indicate the limits of their research as being “too small to draw conclusive conclusions”. Kim and Lee, using survey data from the Measures of Effective Teaching project, conduct multilevel regression analysis to measure teacher effectiveness. They employ a value-added model that moves beyond averages and takes account of variance in teachers, in the name of equity in
{"title":"The scalpel model of educational research","authors":"K. Morrison, G. P. van der Werf","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1912894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1912894","url":null,"abstract":"Many years ago, the late internationally renowned UK educationist, Harvey Goldstein, gave a thrilling keynote lecture on assessment. He calmly, politely, andwith surgical skill, wielded his intellectual scalpel with dazzling flashes of compelling brilliance, dissecting out and demolishing the then UK government’s policy on assessment in UK schools. It was a model of its kind. He set out, analysed, evaluated, critiqued, and judged the policy. He exposed its assumptions, aporias, and underlying ideology, implications, and consequences, drawing on a range of research evidence, weighing up its pros and cons, and leaving it all in ruins on the dissecting table, to the delight and spontaneous applause of the audience. Working like a filigree jeweller, he exposed it for what it was: dogma wrapped up in high-sounding, pejorative phrases. His forecast of consequences came true. By taking a sober, cool, unemotional, dispassionate, careful, perfectly paced, and measured analysis, he enabled his scalpel to do its work, step by step, and it worked wonders. There were no histrionics or one-sided statements. Instead, he let the argument speak for itself. In Habermasian style, the unforced force of the argument prevailed, drawing on a wealth of research evidence where relevant, generating light rather than the heat of a furnace of emotional noise, and persuading by the force of the argument alone, not its temperature. The deeper that Goldstein went into his analysis, the clearer it became that here was a topic – assessment in UK schools – whose features were complex rather than simple, unstraightforward rather than easily understood, multitextured, multidimensional, and multilevelled, a contested ideological terrain in many dimensions and levels, and not to be taken at face value. His analysis was an example par excellence of how researchers in education should operate, indicating not only that they have a duty to expose and unravel the complexity of an issue but also how to do it. The four papers in this issue illustrate the importance of researchers in education opening up and analysing their fields closely and carefully, exposing the complexities of the issues with which they are working, what their evidence suggests, and what are the boundaries of what can be taken from their research. This is their task, whatever fields of focus, methodologies, and methods they employ. For example, in this issue, Cunningham, Gorman, and Maher report action research using observational approaches to study student engagement, noting that “student engagement is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon”, and they indicate the limits of their research as being “too small to draw conclusive conclusions”. Kim and Lee, using survey data from the Measures of Effective Teaching project, conduct multilevel regression analysis to measure teacher effectiveness. They employ a value-added model that moves beyond averages and takes account of variance in teachers, in the name of equity in","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1912894","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44433710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1882051
Randa K. El-Soufi
{"title":"Soft skills in education: putting the evidence in perspective","authors":"Randa K. El-Soufi","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1882051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1882051","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1882051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45325815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1902354
C. Schneider, Christopher DeLuca, M. Pozas, A. Coombs
ABSTRACT Educational assessment is a complex area of teacher professionalism involving negotiation of purposes and practices within sociocultural contexts. Developing teachers’ assessment literacy has thus become a priority across education systems. Additionally, student teachers’ assessment approaches and confidence in their assessment competence may be influenced by their personality and the prevailing educational cultures. This cross-cultural study on student teachers in Canada and Germany examined the relationship between personality traits and assessment literacy. Regression analyses revealed that self-rated assessment literacy was supported by sense of self-efficacy, suggesting that experiences of success in teacher education are important in developing assessment literacy. While summative approaches to assessment were not associated with personality, formative approaches were particularly influenced by personal values such as empathy and composure. Overall, the findings were fairly stable across the two educational contexts. Implications for teacher education in the field of assessment include an emphasis on leveraging student teachers’ values.
{"title":"Linking personality to teachers’ literacy in classroom assessment: a cross-cultural study","authors":"C. Schneider, Christopher DeLuca, M. Pozas, A. Coombs","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1902354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1902354","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Educational assessment is a complex area of teacher professionalism involving negotiation of purposes and practices within sociocultural contexts. Developing teachers’ assessment literacy has thus become a priority across education systems. Additionally, student teachers’ assessment approaches and confidence in their assessment competence may be influenced by their personality and the prevailing educational cultures. This cross-cultural study on student teachers in Canada and Germany examined the relationship between personality traits and assessment literacy. Regression analyses revealed that self-rated assessment literacy was supported by sense of self-efficacy, suggesting that experiences of success in teacher education are important in developing assessment literacy. While summative approaches to assessment were not associated with personality, formative approaches were particularly influenced by personal values such as empathy and composure. Overall, the findings were fairly stable across the two educational contexts. Implications for teacher education in the field of assessment include an emphasis on leveraging student teachers’ values.","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1902354","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43435329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1907202
K. Morrison, Alejandro Salcedo Garcia, Sin Teng Wong
ABSTRACT This paper reports a longitudinal case study of developing, implementing, and evaluating group work in a Chinese school in Macau, and instances the salience of Chinese cultural dimensions of schools, teachers, and students in understanding and developing group work in the Chinese school in question. It analyses group work in a case study school and finds that challenges in developing group work in the school are similar to those reported in non-Chinese schools, whilst, at the same time, embracing key aspects of Chinese culture. Group work here challenges one-sided interpretations of “the Chinese learner” and embraces both individualism and collectivism, collaboration and competition, and academic priorities and social priorities. Several elements of Chinese culture, pedagogical culture, and everyday contexts combine compatibly in understanding group work in this Chinese school.
{"title":"Group work and cultural characteristics in a Chinese school","authors":"K. Morrison, Alejandro Salcedo Garcia, Sin Teng Wong","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1907202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1907202","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reports a longitudinal case study of developing, implementing, and evaluating group work in a Chinese school in Macau, and instances the salience of Chinese cultural dimensions of schools, teachers, and students in understanding and developing group work in the Chinese school in question. It analyses group work in a case study school and finds that challenges in developing group work in the school are similar to those reported in non-Chinese schools, whilst, at the same time, embracing key aspects of Chinese culture. Group work here challenges one-sided interpretations of “the Chinese learner” and embraces both individualism and collectivism, collaboration and competition, and academic priorities and social priorities. Several elements of Chinese culture, pedagogical culture, and everyday contexts combine compatibly in understanding group work in this Chinese school.","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1907202","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43930112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-17DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1906708
Taeyoung Kim, Jaekyung Lee
ABSTRACT Extending conventional value-added models (VAM) of teacher effects that focus on the estimation of average effects for excellence, this study examines “distributive” effects for equity. Using multilevel regression models, the study addresses two research questions to inform educational policy for teacher improvement and accountability. First, do more effective teachers contribute not only to improving student achievement overall (excellence) but also narrowing achievement gaps among student groups (equity)? The results show highly mixed relationships between average effect and distributive effects; effective teachers on average narrowed the achievement gaps among academic groups but not the gaps among racial and socioeconomic groups in their classrooms. Second, what attributes and practices of teachers are associated with desirable teacher effects for both excellence and equity? The conventional measures of teacher characteristics and practices help account for the average teacher effects but not the distributive effects. Implications are discussed for improving the measures of teacher effectiveness.
{"title":"Measuring teacher effectiveness for equity: value-added model of teachers’ distributive effects on classroom achievement gaps","authors":"Taeyoung Kim, Jaekyung Lee","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1906708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1906708","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Extending conventional value-added models (VAM) of teacher effects that focus on the estimation of average effects for excellence, this study examines “distributive” effects for equity. Using multilevel regression models, the study addresses two research questions to inform educational policy for teacher improvement and accountability. First, do more effective teachers contribute not only to improving student achievement overall (excellence) but also narrowing achievement gaps among student groups (equity)? The results show highly mixed relationships between average effect and distributive effects; effective teachers on average narrowed the achievement gaps among academic groups but not the gaps among racial and socioeconomic groups in their classrooms. Second, what attributes and practices of teachers are associated with desirable teacher effects for both excellence and equity? The conventional measures of teacher characteristics and practices help account for the average teacher effects but not the distributive effects. Implications are discussed for improving the measures of teacher effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1906708","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46586020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：