Negative capability? Measuring the unmeasurable in education

Unterhalter, Elaine

doi:10.1080/03050068.2017.1254945

Cited by 42 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another relevant factor relevant is the ease of measuring academic outcomes as indicators of pedagogic impact, rather than evaluating dispositions of active citizenship or personal agency. However, what is easy to measure does not always reflect what it is most important to measure [74]. This reiterates Biesta's assertion that that being clear about the rationale for measurement is essential, since educational evaluation is an engagement with values: it speaks to the question of "whether we are indeed measuring what we value, or whether we are just measuring what we (can) measure" [15] (p. 13).…”

Section: Prioritisation Of Qualification Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Mapping the Evaluation of Problem-Oriented Pedagogies in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Acton

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem-oriented pedagogies have emerged as strategic way for universities to respond to an international higher education agenda that increasingly prioritises innovative, student-centred learning, and the cultivation of both civic and employability competences. Alongside this pedagogic shift is a policy-driven emphasis on monitoring teaching and learning for quality assurance purposes. This article aims to untangle the ways problem- and inquiry-based pedagogies are currently evaluated in universities, and thus consider how ‘quality’ implementation, and the effects of this suite of pedagogic approaches, might be better understood, practised, and measured. Taking a systematic approach to the review of the literature, the article maps evaluation methods that assess the effectiveness of problem-oriented and inquiry-based pedagogies implemented in university settings. The key findings include that evaluation methods in the field (i) prioritise qualification-related outcomes, (ii) are limited in scale and scope, and (iii) often function as demonstrations of performativity rather than as part of an ongoing improvement cycle. The article argues that evaluations that take a multi-method approach from the perspective of a range of stakeholders, with an exploration of civic and social competences in addition to employability outcomes, would significantly strengthen the field.

show abstract

Section: Prioritisation Of Qualification Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Mapping the Evaluation of Problem-Oriented Pedagogies in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Acton

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recognition that existing global level indicators did not fully express ideas about quality and equality was widely shared among representatives of the statistical community making representations to the OWG (2014b), working within UNESCO (Antoninis et al, 2016) and among academic commentators (Unterhalter, 2018b). UNESCO (2010) had pioneered some measures of inequality in education and global civil society organisations, like the Right to Education (RTE), had been working on some alternative indicators to capture facets of the interpretation of rights (De Beco, 2009).…”

Section: Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a metonymic assumption that the input or the outcome indicates the processes highlighted in the targets at work. But as many studies show, this is a shaky assumption, at best, and often wrong (Unterhalter, 2018b;Smith, 2016). Input indicators appear to have been selected by the IAEG because there are data on them, not because they are good proxies for the processes of inclusion or quality.…”

Section: The Limits Of Input or Outcome Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering the possibility of mobilisations for better measures raises historical questions. Sometimes measurement and the power of numbers in education has been a form of domination and imposing particular hierarchies, but sometimes it has been a means to challenge forms of exclusion, subordination and injustice (Unterhalter, 2018b). We need to ask how people who experience the injustice of education exclusion, locally, nationally and internationally, view the process of developing metrics .In what ways they can participate in reviewing metrics and indicators?…”

Section: Mobilising For Better Metrics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Many Meanings of Quality Education: Politics of Targets and Indicators in SDG4

Unterhalter

2019

Global Policy

Self Cite

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The formulation of the SDG education targets was more inclusive than the processes linked with the MDGs. Key constituencies making representations through the Open Working Group and other consultative processes succeeded in formulating targets that stressed inclusion, quality and equality in all phases of education. However, the development of the global indicators for SDG4, has resulted in metrics that miss many of the values of the targets, most notably with regard to quality and free education and substantive, not simply distributive, meanings of equality. The article analyses why some of these slippages took place, and what potential there may be to mobilise for metrics that better depict the key tenets of the education goal and targets. The analysis thus considers ways forward for exploring measurement of the many meanings of quality and equalities in education, reflecting on numbers as instruments that impose power and hierarchy, and the possibility of using reflections on numbers and indicators for critical dialogue and an enhancement of participation, accountability, and work to change injustices in education.

show abstract

“…Собственно, сама возможность характеризовать новый менеджеризм в общественном секторе именно как идеологию возникает благодаря тому, что его широкое практическое применение основано на вере в способность с помощью набора показателей оценить эффективность по природе сложной, многоаспектной и часто творческой образовательной и научной деятельности [Unterhalter, 2017]. Более того, можно утверждать, что к настоящему времени во многом сформирована определенная разновидность управленческой культуры, принимающей как должное способность оценивать на основании сформированных систем показателей и ранжирования эффективность образовательной и научной деятельности .…”

Section: восприятие реформ высшего образования и науки через призму дunclassified

Untitled

2019

Upravlenets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ Главный редактор Силин Яков Петрович, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Екатеринбург) Заместители главного редактора Анимица Евгений Георгиевич, д-р геогр. наук, профессор (Екатеринбург) Иваницкий Виктор Павлович, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Екатеринбург) Члены редколлегии Балацкий Евгений Всеволодович, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Москва) Кулапов Михаил Николаевич, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Москва) Лукьянов Сергей Александрович, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Москва) Одегов Юрий Геннадьевич, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Москва) Шаститко Андрей Евгеньевич, д-р экон. наук, профессор (Москва)

show abstract

Negative capability? Measuring the unmeasurable in education

Cited by 42 publications

References 64 publications

Mapping the Evaluation of Problem-Oriented Pedagogies in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Mapping the Evaluation of Problem-Oriented Pedagogies in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review

The Many Meanings of Quality Education: Politics of Targets and Indicators in SDG4

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About