理解利害关系:问责制政策选项对教师反应的影响

IF 1.6 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Policy Pub Date : 2023-01-04 DOI:10.1177/08959048221142048
A. Levatino, Lluís Parcerisa, Antoni Verger
{"title":"理解利害关系:问责制政策选项对教师反应的影响","authors":"A. Levatino, Lluís Parcerisa, Antoni Verger","doi":"10.1177/08959048221142048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under test-based accountability, side-effects —including practices to inflate test results, often seen as cheating—are usually associated to so-called high-stakes policies. However, the influence of different types of stakes in the generation of this type of practices has been overlooked in education research. Based on a survey experiment, our results indicate that the type and level of stakes of accountability systems (e.g., high- vs. low-stakes, material vs. symbolic) do not differ in triggering side-effects. Counterintuitively, individual symbolic consequences trigger similar reactions among teachers than material incentives. In-depth interviews give insights into the social mechanisms that lead to symbolic effects having such an influence in understanding teachers’ reactivity to accountability.","PeriodicalId":47728,"journal":{"name":"Educational Policy","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the Stakes: The Influence of Accountability Policy Options on Teachers’ Responses\",\"authors\":\"A. Levatino, Lluís Parcerisa, Antoni Verger\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08959048221142048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Under test-based accountability, side-effects —including practices to inflate test results, often seen as cheating—are usually associated to so-called high-stakes policies. However, the influence of different types of stakes in the generation of this type of practices has been overlooked in education research. Based on a survey experiment, our results indicate that the type and level of stakes of accountability systems (e.g., high- vs. low-stakes, material vs. symbolic) do not differ in triggering side-effects. Counterintuitively, individual symbolic consequences trigger similar reactions among teachers than material incentives. In-depth interviews give insights into the social mechanisms that lead to symbolic effects having such an influence in understanding teachers’ reactivity to accountability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Policy\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221142048\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221142048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在基于测试的问责制下,副作用——包括夸大测试结果的做法,通常被视为作弊——通常与所谓的高风险政策有关。然而,在教育研究中,不同类型的利害关系对这类实践产生的影响一直被忽视。基于一项调查实验,我们的研究结果表明,问责制的风险类型和水平(例如,高风险与低风险,物质风险与象征性风险)在引发副作用方面没有差异。与直觉相反,个体的象征性后果在教师中引发的反应与物质激励相似。深入访谈揭示了导致符号效应对理解教师对问责的反应产生如此影响的社会机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Understanding the Stakes: The Influence of Accountability Policy Options on Teachers’ Responses
Under test-based accountability, side-effects —including practices to inflate test results, often seen as cheating—are usually associated to so-called high-stakes policies. However, the influence of different types of stakes in the generation of this type of practices has been overlooked in education research. Based on a survey experiment, our results indicate that the type and level of stakes of accountability systems (e.g., high- vs. low-stakes, material vs. symbolic) do not differ in triggering side-effects. Counterintuitively, individual symbolic consequences trigger similar reactions among teachers than material incentives. In-depth interviews give insights into the social mechanisms that lead to symbolic effects having such an influence in understanding teachers’ reactivity to accountability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Policy
Educational Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Educational Policy provides an interdisciplinary forum for improving education in primary and secondary schools, as well as in high education and non school settings. Educational Policy blends the best of educational research with the world of practice, making it valuable resource for educators, policy makers, administrators, researchers, teachers, and graduate students. Educational Policy is concerned with the practical consequences of policy decisions and alternatives. It examines the relationship between educational policy and educational practice, and sheds new light on important debates and controversies within the field. You"ll find that Educational Policy is an insightful compilation of ideas, strategies, and analyses for improving our educational systems.
期刊最新文献
Principal Leadership of Pre-K Programs in Elementary Schools: Evidence from North Carolina Educational Policy: Analysis, Action, and Advocacy Across Contexts The Relationship Between Teacher Collaboration and Instructional Practices, Instructional Climate, and Social Relations Associations Between Administrative Burden and Children’s ECE Stability During the Covid-19 Pandemic Educational Philanthropy’s “Racial Reckoning” in the Wake of 2020: Understanding Grantmakers’ Responses to Racialized Crises
×
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