Advertisement

Introduction

  • Jon Yorke
  • Lesley Vidovich
Chapter
  • 573 Downloads
Part of the Policy Implications of Research in Education book series (PIRE, volume 7)

Abstract

Chapter 1 begins with the aim of the research: to analyse accountability and quality policies relating to learning standards, and their implications for assessment in higher education. The chapter provides a brief contextualisation internationally, with a focus on the UK and US, as well as Australia (developed further in Chap. 2). It then introduces key conceptual themes of globalisation, accountability, quality, learning standards and assessment (explicated in Chap. 3). This first chapter also articulates the four main research questions, which are derived from the concept of a ‘policy trajectory’, and it provides a ‘taste’ of the theory (detailed in Chap. 4) and methods (detailed in Chap. 5) employed. The significance of this research is then explained. The chapter concludes by foreshadowing the structure of the book. Beyond Chap. 5, the specific findings are presented in Chaps. 6, 7, 8 and 9, a meta-analysis is discussed in Chap. 10 and implications for future development of theory, policy/practice and research are raised in Chap. 11.

Keywords

Accountability Assessment Learning standards Quality policy 

References

  1. Adelman, C. (2009). The Bologna Process for U.S. eyes: Re-learning higher education in the age of convergence. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
  2. Adie, L. (2014). The development of shared understandings of assessment policy: Travelling between global and local contexts. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 532–545. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.853101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 105–131. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alderman, G. (2009). Defining and measuring academic standards: A British perspective. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 1–14. doi: 10.1787/hemp-21-5ksf24ssz1wc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexiadou, N. (2014). Policy learning and Europeanisation in education: The governance of a field and the transfer of knowledge. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy flows in European education: The making and governing of knowledge in the education policy field (pp. 123–140). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  6. Apple, M. W. (2007). Education, markets and an audit culture. International Journal of Educational Policies, 1(1), 4–19. doi: 10.1111/j.0011-1562.2005.00611.x.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Government (2009). Transforming Australia’s higher education system. Canberra: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Baldwin, P. (1991). Higher education: Quality and diversity in the 1990s. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17. doi: 10.1080/0159630930130203.Google Scholar
  10. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ball, S. J. (2012a). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Ball, S. J. (2012b). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2011.650940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bohman, J. (2013). Critical theory. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/critical-theory/. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  14. Bourke, P. (1986). Quality measures in universities. Canberra: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Bøyum, S. (2014). Fairness in education – a normative analysis of OECD policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 856–870. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2014.899396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, R. (2010). The current brouhaha about standards in England. Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–137. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2010.487699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burke, J. C. (2005). The three corners of the accountability triangle. Serving all, submitting to none. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education. Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp. 296–324). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher education: A policy statement. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  22. Department of Education (2014). Upholding quality: Quality indicators for learning and teaching. http://education.gov.au/upholding-quality-quality-indicators-learning-and-teaching. Accessed 10 Oct 2014.
  23. El-Khawas, E. (2013). Quality assurance as a policy instrument: What’s ahead? Quality in Higher Education, 19(2), 248–257. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2013.806740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (2009). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Author. http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ESG_3edition-2.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  25. European Higher Education Area (2014). The Bologna declaration of 19 June 1999: Joint declaration of the European ministers of education. Author. http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  26. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. doi: 10.1080/0260293930180102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  30. How, A. (2003). Critical theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Humes, W., & Bryce, T. (2003). Post-structuralism and policy research in education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 175–187. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kemp, D. (1999). Quality assured: A new Australian quality assurance framework for university education. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  33. Knight, P., & Page, A. (2007). The assessment of ‘wicked’ competences: Report to the Practice-based Professional Learning Centre. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lingard, B. (1996). Educational policy making in a postmodern state. Australian Educational Researcher, 23(1), 65–91. doi: 10.1007/BF03219613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382. doi: 10.1007/s13384-011-0041-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2009). Rescaling and reconstituting education policy. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 217–234). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  37. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). ‘Catalyst data’: Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634–656. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539–556. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.820042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maletic, I. (2013). The law and policy of harmonisation in Europe’s internal market. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marginson, S. (1997). Steering from a distance: Power relations in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 34(1), 63–80. doi: 10.1023/A:1003082922199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marginson, S. (2013). Australia and world university rankings. In S. Marginson (Ed.), Tertiary education policy in Australia (pp. 139–149). Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  42. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. doi: 10.1023/A:1014699605875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martens, K., & Jakobi, A. P. (2010). Mechanisms of OECD governance: International incentives for national policy-making? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Massaro, V. (2010). Cui bono? The relevance and impact of quality assurance. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 17–26. doi: 10.1080/13600800903440527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morton, A. D. (2007). Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and passive revolution in the global political economy. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  46. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, B. (2003). Our universities: Backing Australia’s future. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  48. No Child Left Behind Act (2001). 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).Google Scholar
  49. Odendahl, T., & Shaw, A. M. (2002). Interviewing elites. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 299–316). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Olssen, M. (2009). Neoliberalism, education and the rise of a global common good. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 455–480). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  51. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014a). Education at a glance 2014: OECD indicators. Author. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  52. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014b). Testing student and university performance globally: OECD’s AHELO. www.oecd.org/edu/ahelo. Accessed 10 Oct 2014.
  53. Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162. doi: 10.1080/02680930902733121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ozga, J. (2012). Governing knowledge: Data, inspection and education policy in Europe. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 439–455. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2012.735148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Price, M., Carroll, J., O’Donovan, B., & Rust, C. (2011). If I was going there I wouldn’t start from here: A critical commentary on current assessment practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 479–492. doi: 10.1080/02602930903512883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2012). Recognition scheme for subject benchmark statements. Author. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Recognition-scheme-for-subject-benchmark-statements.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  57. Reid, I. (2009). The contradictory managerialism of university quality assurance. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 575–593. doi: 10.1080/02680930903131242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Rowlands, J. (2012). Accountability, quality assurance and performativity: The changing role of the academic board. Quality in Higher Education, 18(1), 97–110. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2012.663551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sadler, D. R. (2012). Assuring academic achievement standards: From moderation to calibration. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 5–19. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2012.714742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sadler, D. R. (2014). The futility of attempting to codify academic achievement standards. Higher Education, 67(3), 273–288. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9649-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E., & Arnal, E. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society: Volume 1. Special features: governance, funding, quality. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  63. Schwartzman, S. (2010). The national assessment of courses in Brazil. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 293–312). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013a). Looking East: Shanghai, PISA 2009 and the reconstitution of reference societies in the global education policy field. Comparative Education, 49(4), 464–485. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2013.770943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013b). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 710–725. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.779791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shavelson, R. (2010). Measuring college learning responsibly: Accountability in a new era. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making globalisation work. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2011). Understanding academic standards in context of the massification and internationalisation of Australian higher education. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  70. U.S. Department of Education (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  71. UK House of Commons (2009). “Students and universities”: Eleventh report of session 2008–09. House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/170i.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  72. Vidovich, L. (2001). That chameleon ‘quality’: the multiple and contradictory discourses of ‘quality’ policy in Australian higher education. Discourse, 22(2), 249–261. doi: 10.1080/01596300120072400.Google Scholar
  73. Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review, 59(3), 285–298. doi: 10.1080/00131910701427231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vidovich, L. (2013). Policy research in higher education: Theories and methods for globalising times? In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (international perspectives on higher education research) (Vol. 9, pp. 21–39). Bingley: Emerald Insight.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wall, A. F., Hursh, D., & Rodgers, J. W. (2014). Assessment for whom: Repositioning higher education assessment as an ethical and value-focused social practice. Research & Practice in Assessment, 9, 5–17.Google Scholar
  76. Winstanley, C. (2012). Alluring ideas: Cherry picking policy from around the world. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(4), 516–531. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00876.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  78. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Yorke, D. M. (2008). Grading student achievement in higher education: Signals and shortcomings. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Yorke
    • 1
  • Lesley Vidovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  2. 2.The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations