{"title":"评估教师评估政策简报和国家手册中的技术和问题偏见","authors":"L. Mayger","doi":"10.3102/01623737221120578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recognizing the need for scientific fidelity and balanced representation in the evidence that informs public policy, this study investigates technical and issue bias in 43 policy briefs and state handbooks that provided information about the use of Student Learning Objectives to evaluate teachers’ performance. The author uses multiple qualitative methods to categorize the contributors to the focal documents, identify the evidence they drew upon, and determine how they represented the information to their targeted audiences. The study reinforces the findings of prior research by documenting the outsized impact of advocacy groups in a policy-related evidence base. The results make an important addition to the scholarly literature by cataloging an array of technical assistance providers that translated and disseminated evidence to decision makers and spotlighting the various ways biased information appeared in the publications. Throughout, the study reinforces how incentives and timing shape evidence production and use in policymaking.","PeriodicalId":48079,"journal":{"name":"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Technical and Issue Bias in Teacher Evaluation Policy Briefs and State Handbooks\",\"authors\":\"L. Mayger\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/01623737221120578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recognizing the need for scientific fidelity and balanced representation in the evidence that informs public policy, this study investigates technical and issue bias in 43 policy briefs and state handbooks that provided information about the use of Student Learning Objectives to evaluate teachers’ performance. The author uses multiple qualitative methods to categorize the contributors to the focal documents, identify the evidence they drew upon, and determine how they represented the information to their targeted audiences. The study reinforces the findings of prior research by documenting the outsized impact of advocacy groups in a policy-related evidence base. The results make an important addition to the scholarly literature by cataloging an array of technical assistance providers that translated and disseminated evidence to decision makers and spotlighting the various ways biased information appeared in the publications. Throughout, the study reinforces how incentives and timing shape evidence production and use in policymaking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221120578\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221120578","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}
Evaluating Technical and Issue Bias in Teacher Evaluation Policy Briefs and State Handbooks
Recognizing the need for scientific fidelity and balanced representation in the evidence that informs public policy, this study investigates technical and issue bias in 43 policy briefs and state handbooks that provided information about the use of Student Learning Objectives to evaluate teachers’ performance. The author uses multiple qualitative methods to categorize the contributors to the focal documents, identify the evidence they drew upon, and determine how they represented the information to their targeted audiences. The study reinforces the findings of prior research by documenting the outsized impact of advocacy groups in a policy-related evidence base. The results make an important addition to the scholarly literature by cataloging an array of technical assistance providers that translated and disseminated evidence to decision makers and spotlighting the various ways biased information appeared in the publications. Throughout, the study reinforces how incentives and timing shape evidence production and use in policymaking.
期刊介绍:
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) publishes manuscripts of theoretical or practical interest to those engaged in educational evaluation or policy analysis, including economic, demographic, financial, and political analyses of education policies, and significant meta-analyses or syntheses that address issues of current concern. The journal seeks high-quality research on how reforms and interventions affect educational outcomes; research on how multiple educational policy and reform initiatives support or conflict with each other; and research that informs pending changes in educational policy at the federal, state, and local levels, demonstrating an effect on early childhood through early adulthood.