Education For All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. CREATE Pathways to Access. Research Monograph No. 20.
Education For All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. CREATE Pathways to Access. Research Monograph No. 20.
复制标题
全民教育、质量要求和教育学问题。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Alexander
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Alexander
全民教育的讨论已从对质量的承诺转向对质量的衡量，而没有充分考虑质量的内涵，特别是在至关重要的教育学领域。与此同时，对质量指标的需求使重要的方法问题没有得到解决。本文对来自国际和全民教育来源的典型质量指标框架进行了评论。它注意到对投入和背景的关注，而牺牲了过程，在重点上的任意性，过度使用代理，忽视国际教学研究，以及对关键术语“质量”，“指标”和“措施”的根本混淆。在考虑了一个更有前途的印度框架，从NCERT，本文提出了评估所有这些举措的标准，其中的核心是全面性，证据基础，有效性，可靠性，影响力，可靠性和适当性的水平和背景的使用。关于后者，本文提出了“谁需要知道什么”的问题。从国家到地方的系统各级都要问。然后，本文探讨了帐户和指标或质量的经验和概念基础，论证了国家文化和环境以及国际教学研究的重要性。该文件发现，后者与全民教育文献之间的接口是非常薄弱的;学校效能研究在全民教育背景下得到突出，这是其他地方所没有的，其有缺陷的方法和文化不敏感性也是不合理的。选择性地使用证据的基础是一个更普遍的失败，充分概念化正在研究的东西，本文列出了一个地图的教育学领域的思想和行动的水平，以弥补这一不足，说明其价值，考虑只是一个确定的教学，课堂互动的各个方面。本文件强调了目前对这一领域概念问题的关切，指出了将指标和措施视为同义词的倾向，以及过分关注措施所造成的扭曲。报告认为，以指标无法衡量为理由而抛弃指标，是忽视了在学与教的质量方面最重要的东西。这种排他性也与试图将质量代表为数量的危险完全理解的说法相矛盾。最后，本文件提出了指导全民教育质量指标和措施的未来工作的程序原则，以及在印度全民教育计划Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan的具体背景下推动辩论的优先行动和四项实际倡议。总的来说，本文既涉及当前全民教育关于质量和指标的讨论，又不涉及这些讨论。作者是一位教育家和研究人员，但他在国际和全民教育方面有着丰富的经验，包括印度、DPEP和SSA。他的观点可能与迄今为止主导全民教育质量辩论的观点不一致，对此他并不感到抱歉。事实上，观点的碰撞可能正是“煽动话语”所需要的。通信：罗宾教授亚历山大，教育学院，184山路，剑桥CB 2 8 PQ，英国，或rja40@cam.ac.uk。另见www.robinalexander.org.uk。
EFA discourse has moved from a commitment to quality to its measurement without adequate consideration of what quality entails, particularly in the vital domain of pedagogy. Meanwhile, the demand for quality indicators has left important methodological questions unanswered. This paper provides a critique of typical quality indicator frameworks from international and EFA sources. It notes a concern with input and context at the expense of process, an arbitrariness in what is focused upon, an excessive use of proxies, neglect of international pedagogical research, and fundamental confusions about the key terms ‘quality’, ‘indicators’ and ‘measures’. After considering one of the more promising Indian frameworks, from NCERT, the paper proposes criteria for assessing all such initiatives, central to which are comprehensiveness, evidential basis, validity, reliability, impact, manageability and appositeness to level and context of use. In respect of the latter, the paper presses the need for the question ‘Who needs to know what?’ to be asked at each level of the system from national to local. The paper then investigates the empirical and conceptual basis for accounts and indicators or quality, arguing the importance of national culture and circumstance alongside international pedagogical research. The paper finds that the interface between the latter and the EFA literature is extremely weak; and that school effectiveness research is given a prominence in EFA contexts which it is not accorded elsewhere and which its flawed methodology and cultural insensitivity do not justify. Underlying the selective use of evidence is a more general failure adequately to conceptualise what is being researched, and the paper sets out a map of the territory of pedagogy at the levels of ideas and action to remedy this deficiency, illustrating its value by considering just one of the various aspects of teaching identified, classroom interaction. Pressing home the concern about the conceptual problems of the field as it currently stands, the paper points to the tendency to treat indicators and measures as synonymous, and to the distortion which follows an excessive preoccupation with measures. It argues that to jettison indicators on the grounds that they are non-measurable is to ignore much of what matters most in the quality of learning and teaching. This exclusivity also contradicts claims that the dangers of trying to represent quality as quantity are fully understood. Finally, the paper proposes principles of procedure to guide future work on quality indicators and measures in the EFA context, together with priorities for action and four practical initiatives to take the debate forward in the particular context of India’s EFA programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. As a whole, the paper both engages with the current EFA discourse on quality and indicators and steps outside it. The author is an educationist and researcher, though one with substantial international and EFA experience, including India, DPEP and SSA. He makes no apologies for the fact that his perspective may not sit readily with that which has dominated the EFA quality debate up to now. Indeed, a collision of perspectives may be just what is needed by way of ‘incitement to discourse’. Correspondence: Professor Robin Alexander, Faculty of Education, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PQ, UK, or rja40@cam.ac.uk. See also www.robinalexander.org.uk.