School Effectiveness Research: criticisms and recommendations

Coe, Robert S.; Fitz‐Gibbon, Carol Taylor

doi:10.1080/0305498980240401

Cited by 77 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The limitations of this approach are compounded when little justification is offered as to why a given indicator of effectiveness is selected. Further, it is assumed a small number of limited indicators will suffice (Coe & Fitz-Gibbon, 1998). Yet this ambiguity may be heightened as medical researchers and educationists (as well as other social scientists) meet in the interdisciplinary field of medical education.…”

Section: Basic Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers how educational interventions should be evaluated for their effectiveness. Five levels of effectiveness are clarified and illustrated: outcomes, behaviour, learning, reaction and participation. These levels are then discussed, within the context of research evidence for education within the medical profession. Methodological and practical research conclusions are then drawn. From an analysis of over 300 abstracts the evidence shows that only limited research on healthcare outcomes has been undertaken, and there is considerable ambiguity over what constitutes an effectiveness measure. The benefits of a consistent set of terms are then considered. Finally, five key messages are distilled from the discussion and summarized.

show abstract

Section: Basic Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…McPherson (1992), Goldstein, Rasbash, Yang, Woodhouse, Nuttall, and Thomas (1993), SCAA (1994), Sammons, Hillman, and Mortimore (1995), Fitz-Gibbon (1996,a and1996,b), Gray, Goldstein, and Jesson (1996), Thomas and Mortimore (1996), Goldstein (1997), and Coe and Fitz-Gibbon (1998) provide examples of this particular interest. The research agenda in this area has been given impetus by the systematic publication from 1992 of school and college examination results in a series of 'league tables'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of A‐level performance in economics and business studies: How much more difficult is economics?

Reilly

Bachan

2005

Education Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses ALIS data to compare academic performance in two subjects often viewed as relatively close substitutes for one another at A-level. The important role of GCSE achievement is confirmed for both subjects. There is evidence of strong gender effects and variation in outcomes across Examination Boards. A counterfactual exercise suggests that if the sample of Business Studies candidates had studied Economics nearly 40% of those who obtained a grade C or better in the former subject would not have done so in the latter. The opposite exercise suggests that 12% more Economics candidates would have achieved a grade C or better if they had taken Business Studies. In order to render a Business Studies A-level grade comparable to an Economics one in terms of relative difficulty, we estimate that a downward adjustment of 1.5 UCAS points should be applied to the former subject. This adjustment is lower than that suggested by correction factors based on conventional subject pair analysis for these two subjects.

show abstract

“…A related criticism concerns the "fishing for correlations" practice between particular constructs and student outcomes without fully understanding why and how it is expected that the two would be related (Coe & Fitz-Gibbon, 1998). On this aspect, Caro and SandovalHernandez (2012b) note that it can be said that we know something about what works in education, but we know little about why it works or about the mechanisms at work.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What works where? The relationship between instructional variables and schools' mean scores in mathematics and science in low-, medium-, and high-achieving countries

Zuzovsky

2013

Large-scale Assess Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The association between frequent use of certain instructional practices in mathematics and science and learning outcomes in schools in low-, medium-, and high-achieving countries is the focus of this study. It not only looks at teaching practices "that work" (positively associated with achievement) but whether they "work" similarly in the three groups of countries. Method: Hierarchical multilevel regressions analysis was employed to explore the relationships between frequent use ofcertain instructional practices in mathematics and science and schools' learning outcomes in these areas, in low-, medium-, and high-achieving countries.

show abstract

School Effectiveness Research: criticisms and recommendations

Cited by 77 publications

References 25 publications

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion

A comparison of A‐level performance in economics and business studies: How much more difficult is economics?

What works where? The relationship between instructional variables and schools' mean scores in mathematics and science in low-, medium-, and high-achieving countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About