Evidence for quality and effectiveness in education.代寫

  • 100%原創包過,高質代寫&免費提供Turnitin報告--24小時客服QQ&微信:120591129
  • Evidence for quality and effectiveness in education.代寫

    EDUC7211 Learning Guide for Module 1
    MODULE 1: Evidence for quality and effectiveness in education.
    Module 1 examines the use evidence, and what counts as evidence in advocating for changes in education.  Research and evidence are crucial to educational decision-making, but what counts as evidence in contemporary debate about education? Test outcomes nationally and internationally have recently been hailed as crucial evidence in determining educational policy and practice.  Large scale research on teaching and learning, and meta-analyses of such research (e.g.Visible Learning by John Hattie) are also influencing policy and practice considerations.  In Module 1 we highlight reservations about this approach by examining the multi-dimensional purposes of education, and considering the centrality to education of outcomes related to student well-being, collective well-being, and normative commitments to certain types of values and ethical processes. We suggest that a good education is about much more than test scores, so broader and more representative forms of evidence and accountability are required to develop a high quality and fair system of education.
    The readings and activities in this module address Learning Objectives1 and.2 as well part of Objective 3. The latter is explored fully in Module 2.
    1. Examine the current importance of “evidence” for informing education policies and practices
    2. Understand and contrast between “evidence informed” and “evidence based” policies and practices, and appreciate how the former is deployed to highlight the value-based (normative) and contested nature of education goals
    3. Appreciate the place of evidence in addressing educational equity and social justice, and understand that quality and equity are complementary and not competing goals of education.
    By the end of this Module you should be well-positioned to complete assessment Task 1
    Evidence for quality and effectiveness in education.代寫
    Assessment Task 1
    What constitutes evidence in education?
    Type: Essay
    Learning Objectives Assessed: 1, 2, 3
    Due Date: 12 Apr 2017 19:00
    Weight: 50%
    3000 words
    Task Description:
    Task 1
    Part A. It is asserted in recent policy initiatives that (i) teacher quality, (ii) the performance of particular schools, and (iii) even the effectiveness of national systems of education should be based on evidence.  This is summarized in the popular term, evidence-based practices and policies.  What constitutes evidence for “quality” or “equity” in education, however, is not self-evident.  Educationalists debate the meaning of these terms and how educational quality and equity can be authentically measured.
    Part A. (1500 words not including references)
    Clarify the main points in the debate about what constitutes “quality” and “equity” in education, and how these might be measured authentically. Draw upon the readings in the course guide (3-5) and supplement those readings with relevant readings you’ve sourced yourself (3-5).
    Part B. Read the extract below from the school performance framework recently drafted by the State of Queensland (2014).Look at the type of evidence presented in the headline indicators that are used to judge school performance.
    Part B. (1500 words not including references).
    Critique the kind of evidence provided in headline indicators by drawing on ideas from the course regarding the local context of schools, the different interests of stakeholders, the multiple purposes of education, and concerns about equity and social justice. What additional evidence would you include based on your critique?
    Extract from State of Queensland School Performance Framework –
    “The annual performance assessment will take the form of a desktop audit of school performance data. The audit will be conducted … using agreed headline indicators. The headline indicators have been developed in consultation with principals and regions, and provide a snapshot of a school’s data and performance that is fair and consistent and can be used to determine further review or intervention activities. The …headline indicators are …:
    ·         Student attendance rates — the proportion of students with a less than 85 per cent attendance rate, and comparison with the state attendance rate for the school type
    ·         Growth in NAPLAN proportions at or above National Minimum Standard (NMS)
    ·         Growth in NAPLAN proportions in the upper two bands (U2B)
    ·         NAPLAN-relative performance compared to schools of similar score on the Index of Community Socio- Educational Advantage (ICSEA)
    ·         NAPLAN-relative gain compared with previous results
    ·         Relative school performance in:
    o    English, maths and science — the aggregated proportion of students receiving a grade of C or better (A–E results)
    o    Year 12 outcomes — percentage of OP 1–15; percentage attaining QCE, VET, IBD, QCIA or certificate II; and percentage of students (who did not receive OP 1–15) who obtained a certificate III or above
    Post-school destinations for students — the proportion of students in education, training or employment six months after Year 12”
    Access to readings
    Required course readings can be found in the 7211 course resources via the My library on the EDUC7211 Blackboard site or directly from the Library’s home page. Click on Course Resources in the “Search or Browse” section, then type in “EDUC7211” in the “Search by Course Code” window).
    Internal students
    Each week you are expected to use the Guiding your reading and thinking sections to support your reading of the required readings in preparation for the workshops.
    We also recommend that you read at least one of the recommended readings each week
    There are also some links to videos that you should watch. These videos introduce key ideas and/or provide examples of practitioner research.
    You may also be requested to undertake some specific tasks for the workshops.
    External students
    Each week you are expected to use the Guiding your reading and thinking sections to support your reading of the required readings in preparation for the assessment.
    We also recommend that you read at least one of the recommended readings each week.
    There are also some links to videos that you should watch. These videos introduce key ideas and/or provide examples of practitioner research.
    You may also be requested to undertake some specific tasks and to post these to the Blackboard discussion board for sharing.

    Topics for Module 1
    There are four weeks and associated topics in this module. These are:
    ·         Diverse evidence and multiple voices: Whose account counts?
    ·        Purposes of education: worthwhile learning, identities and values.
    ·        National testing and public accountability: Effects of high stakes testing.
    ·        Forms of accountability in education: Vertical and horizontal approaches.
    Week 1. Diverse evidence and multiple voices: Whose account counts?
    Hattie, J (2009). Visible Learning.Preface and Chapter 1. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
    Bausmith, J. M. & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: the importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 175–178.
    Anderson, G. L. & Herr, K. (2011). Scaling up “evidence-based” practices for teachers is a profitable but discredited paradigm. Educational Researcher, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 287–289.
    Jensen, B., Hunter, A., Sonnemann, J., and Burns, T. (2012) Catching up: learning from the best school systems in East Asia. Grattan Institute. http://www.grattan.edu.au/
    NOTES. See the videos by John Hattie. These have been linked on Blackboard under Module 1 Learning Resources
    In the introductory chapter to Visible Learning John Hattie clarifies what he is NOT addressing in his massive meta-analysis of research on classrooms and teaching strategies.  He is not addressing educational outcomes beyond “achievement”.  So he doesn’t address educational outcomes related to students’ motivation, sense of self, emotional security, happiness, or sense of belongingness. He does NOT address how teaching might interact with certain student characteristics based on their community and cultural backgrounds – John conveys this reservation by saying he is only interested in main effects. This implies all learners respond similarly to teaching methods. And he is NOT addressing the variance in outcomes from schooling associated with poverty and disadvantage – crucial factors outside the classroom. But do these factors of poverty and disadvantage require different ways of teaching? How do we teach differently when students come to school from poor and disadvantaged families and communities.
    We focus on this popular book because it raises critical issues about how quality might be determined.  What are the touchstones of high quality education? Can we rely only on achievement scores?  As the focus of this week suggests, we think more diverseforms of evidence are required. It’s not just increases in achievement per se – but increases in certain types of worthwhile learning.
    Expert researchers such as John Hattie – and even ourselves as engaged academics and scholars at UQ – are keen to influence the debate about quality education, teaching methods, and valued outcomes from schooling.  But should our ‘expert’ voices and ideas have privilege over other voices?When it is claimed that education practice should be “evidence-based”, does this imply evidence should only be gathered from experts. Look at the videos of John Hattie presenting on his research. He sounds very convincing and authoritative because he has such a vast amount of research to back his claims.So is that the end of the story?  The “expert” has spoken based on vast evidence.
    We would suggest you also consider who the key stakeholders are in schooling and how their viewpoints might be given weight in the debate about what counts as evidence?Politically and philosophically you might ask why stakeholders should be considered.  This goes to the heart of what we value as a democratic and participatory society – see Required Readings in subsequent weeks by Gert Biesta who takes up this issue more fully.
    Are students’ views and voices important, and how do we access their views and give them weight in policy decisions?  Are the views of parents important? What about the profession of teaching that over time has accumulated rich knowledge about teaching and learning?  Should teachers’ perspectives be weighted more than, for example, what a test score suggests about a child’s development?  How are the interests of employers taken into account?
    In short, whose account of quality education counts and how are differing accounts compared and reconciled in making decisions about quality practices? 
    This first week really introduces these questions, without providing detailed consideration. In the next 3 weeks different readings and activities are planned to assist you to begin formulating your response to these provocations.
    The advocates of what works base their ideas on a compelling logic – identify and describe best practices and then invite others to adopt those practices.  An example of this kind of logic is provided in the recommended reading by Jensen et al (2012).  They suggest that Australia should learn form the best school systems in East Asia.  The best systems are identified on the basis of PISA evidence.  The article identifies key practices in these systems and suggests that policy makers should ensure that teachers and principals begin to mirror these practices in Australia.
    Look also at Andreas Scheiker’s talk on what can be learned from comparing across countries both about performance and equity.
    Given the compelling logic of “what works”, therefore, it is interesting to read the article by Anderson and Herr (2011) who argue that the notion of applying “what works” broadly across a system of schools is a discredited paradigm.  They critique the paper by Bausmith and Barry (2011) who had suggested that all teachers should take notice of the centrality of pedagogical content knowledge.  Our purpose here is not to enter in detail into the specifics of the debate about content knowledge, but to discern the types of arguments that are offered and critiqued when considering “what works”.
    Week 2. Purposes of education: worthwhile learning, identities and values.
    Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘‘what works’’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory 57( 1 ), 1-22
    Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, Vol. ••, No. ••
    DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12109.
    Reid, A. (2010). Accountability and the public purposes of education. Paper prepared for the Australian Education Union. www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2010/NS/AReid.pdf
    NOTESThis week we highlight the contributions of Gert Biesta to the debate on evidence-based practices – or what we have termed “what works”.   Gert is a philosopher of education.  He considers deeply the meaning of learning and education, and identifies the multidimensional nature of educational outcomes.  He also links his arguments about worthwhile learning and education to the professionalism of teachers and the centrality of teacher judgements.  Good practices in education, he suggests, are not matters that can be programmed from the outside (eg by following “what works”) but require teachers to make informed, ethical and complex decisions about how worthwhile learning can be achieved for this child, or this group of children, in their local context.  In this sense he considers teaching as an ethical practice rather than as a technical practice.  Ethics involves judgements of the child’s “best interests” and foregrounds issues of care and long-term well-being. Technical practice in contrast foregrounds achieving specific goals and outcomes with efficiency and effectiveness.
    Alan Reid complements the Gert Biesta readings by arguing for a renewed emphasis on democratic public purposes for Australian education.  Alan Reid suggests that education has become a competitive enterprise where individualism and private gains are emphasized (eg through rankings and comparisons between teachers schools and students etc).  He argues for a more democratic and participatory approach to education where the common good and building a sense of collective well-being and caring for all students is paramount.
    Week 3. National testing: and public accountability: Effects of high stakes testing.
    Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 19 (1), 65–79.
    Margot Ford (2013) Achievement gaps in Australia: what NAPLAN revealsabout education inequality in Australia. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16:1, 80-102,
    DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2011.645570
    Cobbold, T. (2010). Rorting and cheating of school results is the future under my school. Save our Schools, Education Policy Brief .http://www.saveourschools.com.au
    Mills, C. (2015). Implications of the My School Website for disadvantaged communities: a Bourdieuian analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory: Incorporating ACCESS. 47:2, 146-158. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2013.793927
    NOTES.  The effects of high stakes testing are explored in these readings.  The motives of policy makers in mandating tests are quite laudable – that is, they want to increase public accountability and transparency.  However, the unexpected and perverse effects of testing are very well known.  These effects in the Australian context are explored and explained in the papers by Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith (2012) and with more specific reference to indigenous students by Margot Ford (2013). The article by Trevor Cobbold shows some of the negative initial effects of NAPLAN tests on students and teachers and how participants tried to “play the system” to “appear” positive.  The article by Carmen Mills (2015), like that of Margot Ford, focusses on issues of disadvantage and how My School website operates to reinforce the disadvantage of the most vulnerable groups in society.
    The question that arises here is the following: if tests are not sources of authentic evidence for good practices, then how do we collect authentic evidence?  Another question is: what are tests good for?
    Week 4. Forms of Accountability in Education: Vertical and Horizontal Approaches.
    O’Neill, O (2013): Intelligent accountability in education, Oxford Review of Education, 39:1, 4-16
    Crooks, T (2007). Principles for intelligent accountability, with Illustrations from Education. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, University of Otago, 4 October 2007 http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/itunesu/podcasts/otago017510.html
    Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 45–61.
    Hooge, E., T. Burns and H. Wilkoszewski (2012), Looking Beyond the Numbers: Stakeholders and Multiple School Accountability, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k91dl7ct6q6-en
    NOTES.  In this final week of Module 1 we look at how accountability (of teachers and schools and systems) has been framed and what an authentic accountability system might look like. 
    Vertical accountability is reporting upwards to our managers and supervisors.  Typically it involves collecting quantitative data that can be easily compared across different schools teachers and systems.  The participants at the bottom of the vertical accountability framework experience these systems as potentially stressful because it is their performance that is under scrutiny.  What sanctions and rewards might apply in these vertical systems?  Will teacher’s promotion or salary be tied to such measures?
    PasiSalhberg suggests (in his video) that teachers should be held to be responsible rather than accountable.  They are responsible to themselves and their colleagues for acting professionally, and they are responsible to the students and parents to do their best to ensure the well-being and learning of all the students.  So responsibility is a professional attitude of commitment and engagement and it is anchored in a relationship one has with immediate others – ie students and parents and more broadly to the teaching profession. Vertical accountability distances the relationship from the immediate context to district office and head office. 
    In recent years scholars have begun to suggest notions of horizontal accountability and intelligent accountability.  These frames for accountability suggest that teachers and schools need to find richer and more relevant ways to tell the story of what is happening at the school.  Horizontal forms of accountability involve explicit attention to the interests of different stakeholders (students, parents, employers, local community) and to the specific needs and context of the students and parents at the school.  Horizontal accountability includes more dimensions of worthwhile learning, and highlights the schools’ engagement with the community.  Typical formats for horizontal accountability will include narratives (accounts) about valued outcomes for specific groups of students; accounts of curriculum projects that connected the school and community; and accounts of forms of participation that brought together different stakeholders in considering the role of the school in the local community.
     Evidence for quality and effectiveness in education.代寫