Advertisement

Key Concepts: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations

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

Abstract

Chapter 3 explicates the key concepts underpinning the research. They are closely interrelated and presented as a sequence from general to more specific constructs. ‘Globalisation’ is having a profound overarching influence on the interconnectedness of policy construction and enactment across many countries. In a global knowledge era, a burgeoning of ‘accountability’ policies has emerged as a new type of government steerage of education, particularly with the use of quantitative comparisons of performance at national and international levels. ‘Quality’ policies can be seen as a form of accountability often associated with audit, but they are chameleon-like and take on different meanings for different policy actors. Within the domain of ‘quality’, the specification of ‘learning standards’ has become prominent, and, in turn, the measurement of learning standards carries high-stakes implications for assessment policies within educational institutions. While many would agree that some form of accountability is necessary, the various forms remain complex and highly contested.

Keywords

Globalisation Accountability Quality Learning standards Assessment policy/practice 

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. 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
  4. Allais, S. (2011). ‘Economics imperialism’, education policy and educational theory. Journal of Education Policy, 27(2), 253–274. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.602428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alstete, J. (1995). Benchmarking in higher education: Adapting best practices to improve quality. The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED402801.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  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. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2010). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project: Final report. Author. http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/altc_standards.finalreport.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  9. Bagnall, N. (2013). Globalisation. In R. Connell, T. Welch, M. Vickers, D. Foley, N. Bagnall, D. Hayes, et al. (Eds.), Education, change and society (3rd ed., pp. 276–293). Melbourne: Vic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119–130. doi: 10.1080/03050069828225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ball, S. J. (2009). Education reform, teacher professionalism and the end of authenticity. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 699–714). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. Ball, S. J. (2012a). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Barker, B. (2010). The pendulum swings: Transforming school reform. Oakhill: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  16. Barrett, D. (2011, January 1). Dumbing down of university grades revealed. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8235115/Dumbing-down-of-university-grades-revealed.html. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  17. Baty, P. (2002, September 6). Goldsmiths is under QAA fire. Times Higher Education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/171392.article. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  18. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209–220. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bloxham, S., & Price, M. (2015). External examining: Fit for purpose? Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 195–211. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.823931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., & Orr, S. (2011). Mark my words: The role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 655–670. doi: 10.1080/03075071003777716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bottery, M. (2006). Education and globalization: Redefining the role of the educational professional. Educational Review, 58(1), 95–113. doi: 10.1080/00131910500352804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Boud, D., & Associates (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Brown, R. (2011). Markets and non-markets. In R. Brown (Ed.), Higher education and the market (pp. 6–19). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Caldwell, A. (2012, January 18). NAPLAN cheating cases on the rise. ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-18/naplan-cheating-cases-on-the-rise/3781182. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  30. Canaan, J. E., & Schumar, W. (2008). Higher education in the era of globalisation and neoliberalism. In J. E. Canaan & W. Schumar (Eds.), Structure and agency in the neoliberal university (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Chilcott, T. (2011, May 7). Queensland’s NAPLAN test cheating shame. The Courier Mail. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/states-naplan-test-cheating-shame/story-e6freon6-1226051435596. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  32. Coates, H. (2007). Excellent measures precede measures of excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 87–94. doi: 10.1080/13600800601175805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Corbett, D. C. (1996). Australian public sector management (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Currie, J., Vidovich, L., & Yang, R. (2008). “Countability not answerability?” Accountability in Hong Kong and Singapore universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(1), 67–85. doi: 10.1080/02188790701845972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cussó, R., & D’Amico, S. (2005). From development comparatism to globalization comparativism: Towards more normative international education statistics. Comparative Education, 41(2), 199–216. doi: 10.1080/03050060500037012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117–149. doi: 10.1080/03050060500150906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. De Lissovoy, N., & Mclaren, P. (2003). Educational ‘accountability’ and the violence of capital: A Marxian reading. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 131–143. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Dearn, J. (2009). Some comments on the AUQA discussion paper “Setting and monitoring academic standards for Australian higher education”. Australian Universities Quality Agency. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/127066/20110826-0004/www.auqa.edu.au/qualityenhancement/academicstandards/responses/19.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  40. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2011). Developing a framework for teaching and learning standards in Australian higher education and the role of TEQSA. Author. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/127861/20110714-1750/www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/teqsa/Documents/Teaching_Learning_Discussion_Paper.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  41. Dobbins, M., & Martens, K. (2011). Towards an education approach à la finlandaise? French education policy after PISA. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 23–43. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.622413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dressel, P. (1983). Grades: One more tilt at the windmill. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), Bulletin. Memphis: Memphis State University for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  43. Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  44. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Eisner, E. W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation: A personal view. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Enns, C. (2015). Transformation or continuation? A critical analysis of the making of the post-2015 education agenda. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(3), 369–387. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2014.959894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Evans, M. (2010). Untitled letter to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  49. Exley, S., & Ball, S. J. (2014). Neo-liberalism and English education. In D. Turner & H. Yolcu (Eds.), Neoliberal education reforms: A global analysis (pp. 13–31). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  50. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  51. Fisher, R. (2009). Untitled letter to AUQA. Australian Universities Quality Agency. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/127066/20110826-0004/www.auqa.edu.au/qualityenhancement/academicstandards/responses/6.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  52. Foley, B., & Goldstein, H. (2012). Measuring success: League tables in the public sector. The British Academy. http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Measuring-success.cfm. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  53. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  54. French, E., Summers, J., Kinash, S., Lawson, R., Taylor, T., Herbert, J., et al. (2014). The practice of quality in assuring learning in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 24–43. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2014.889432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Frolich, N. (2011). Multi-layered accountability. Performance-based funding of universities. Public Administration, 89(3), 840–859. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01867.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. doi: 10.1080/02680930802412669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Grek, S. (2013). Expert moves: International comparative testing and the rise of expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 695–709. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gür, B. S., Çelik, Z., & Özoğlu, M. (2011). Policy options for Turkey: A critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.595509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Harris, K.-L. (2009). International trends in establishing the standards of academic achievement in higher education: An independent report and analysis. University of Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education. http://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/teaching/international-trends. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  60. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. doi: 10.1080/0260293930180102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming quality evaluation: Moving on. In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education, trends in regulation, translation and transformation (pp. 225–247). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. Haug, G. (1997). Capturing the message conveyed by grades: Interpreting foreign grades. World Education News and Reviews, 10(2), 12–17.Google Scholar
  64. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  65. Higher Education Quality Council (1997). Assessment in higher education and the role of ‘graduateness’. London: Author.Google Scholar
  66. Hill, D. (2011). A contentious triangle: Grading and academic freedom in the academy. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00465.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hudson, J. (2010). Programme-level assessment: A review of selected material. University of Bradford. http://www.pass.brad.ac.uk/wp3litreview.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  68. Humphry, S. M. (2013). A middle path between abandoning measurement and measurement theory. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 770–785. doi: 10.1177/0959354313499638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hursh, D. (2008). High-stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning: The real crisis in education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  70. Hursh, D. (2013). Raising the stakes: High-stakes testing and the attack on public education in New York. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 574–588. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368. doi: 10.1080/13562510309399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hynes, J., & Nyre, J. (2011). A report to the Iona community on the investigation into student performance-related data. IONA College. www.iona.edu/iona/media/Documents/About/Presidents-Office/Integrity%20in%20Reporting/Audit_Report_Letter.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  73. Jawitz, J. (2009). Learning in the academic workplace: The harmonization of the collective and the individual habitus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 601–614. doi: 10.1080/03075070802556149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Jessop, T., El Hakim, Y., & Gibbs, G. (2014). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: A large-scale study of students’ learning in response to different programme assessment patterns. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 73–88. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.792108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Jones, I., & Alcock, L. (2014). Peer assessment without assessment criteria. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1774–1787. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.821974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Karlsen, G. (2000). Decentralized centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(5), 525–538. doi: 10.1080/026809300750001676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Karran, T. (2005). Pan-European grading scales: Lessons from national systems and the ECTS. Higher Education in Europe, 30(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kells, S., & Hodge, G. (2009). Performance auditing in the public sector: Reconceptualising the task. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 15(2), 33–60.Google Scholar
  79. Knight, P. (2002a). The Achilles’ heel of quality: The assessment of student learning. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 107–115. doi: 10.1080/13538320220127506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Knight, P. (2002b). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275–286. doi: 10.1080/03075070220000662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Knight, P. (2006). The local practices of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 435–452. doi: 10.1080/02602930600679126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2010). Policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 443–463. doi: 10.1080/02680931003782819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lederman, D., Stratford, M., & Jaschik, S. (2014, February 07). Rating (and berating) the ratings. In Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/07/colleges-and-analysts-respond-obama-ratings-proposal. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  85. Lee, J. (2010). Trick or treat: New ecology of education accountability system in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 73–93. doi: 10.1080/02680930903377423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. Lingard, B., Rawolle, S., & Taylor, S. (2005). Globalizing policy sociology in education: Working with Bourdieu. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), 759–777. doi: 10.1080/02680930500238945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lingard, B., Creagh, S., & Vass, G. (2011). Education policy as numbers: Data categories and two Australian cases of misrecognition. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 315–333. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.605476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto: Fearon.Google Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Marginson, S. (2014). University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 45–59. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. McGaw, B. (2008). The role of the OECD in international comparative studies of achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 223–243. doi: 10.1080/09695940802417384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Moodie, G. (2011). Developing student market in Australia. In R. Brown (Ed.), Higher education and the market (pp. 63–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  98. Newstead, S. (2002). Examining the examiners: Why are we so bad at assessing students? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 2(2), 70–75. doi: 10.2304/plat.2002.2.2.70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Newstead, S., & Dennis, I. (1994). Examiners examined: The reliability of exam marking in psychology. The Psychologist, 7, 216–219.Google Scholar
  100. Novoa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438. doi: 10.1080/0305006032000162002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Nusche, D. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes in education: A comprehensive review of selected practices. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. O’Hagan, S. R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2015). Who’s marking my essay? The assessment of non-native-speaker and native-speaker undergraduate essays in an Australian higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1729–1747. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.896890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Oliver, B., Lawson, K. J., & Yorke, J. D. (2008). Moderation assessed: Policies and practices. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ATN Assessment Conference, Adelaide, Australia, November 2008.Google Scholar
  104. Olssen, M. (1996). In defence of the welfare state and publicly provided education: A New Zealand perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 11(3), 337–362. doi: 10.1080/0268093960110305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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
  106. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. doi: 10.1080/02680930500108718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014a). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). http://www.oecd.org/pisa/. Accessed 10 Oct 2014.
  108. 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.
  109. Orr, S. (2007). Assessment moderation: Constructing the marks and constructing the students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 645–656. doi: 10.1080/02602930601117068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 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
  111. 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
  112. Ozga, J., & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1080/02680930500391462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Pirsig, R. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: An inquiry into values. London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
  114. Polanyi, M. (1998). The tacit dimension. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in organizations (pp. 135–146). Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  115. Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2014). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640–657. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.865082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Price, M. (2005). Assessment standards: The role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 215–230. doi: 10.1080/02602930500063793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 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
  118. 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.
  119. Quinn, L. (2012). Understanding resistance: An analysis of discourses in academic staff development. Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 69–83. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.497837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), 459–480. doi: 10.1080/0268093032000124848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Rauhvargers, A. (2011). Global university rankings and their impact. European University Association. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Global_University_Rankings_and_Their_Impact.sflb.ashx. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  122. Rautalin, M., & Alasuutari, P. (2009). The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 539–556. doi: 10.1080/02680930903131267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Reid, I. (2009). The contradictory managerialism of university quality assurance. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 575–593. doi: 10.1080/02680930903131242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Rizvi, F. (2014). Encountering education in the global: The selected works of Fazal Rizvi. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  125. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  126. Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalisation paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  127. 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
  128. Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164. doi: 10.1080/02602930301671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Sachs, J. (1994). Strange yet compatible bedfellows: Quality assurance and quality improvement. Australian Universities Review, 37(1), 22–25.Google Scholar
  130. Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000264262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 387–392. doi: 10.1080/09695940701592097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sadler, D. R. (2008). Are we short-changing our students? The use of preset criteria in assessment. (TLA Interchange, Vol. 3). Edinburgh: Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.Google Scholar
  133. Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179. doi: 10.1080/02602930801956059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 727–743. doi: 10.1080/02602930902977756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 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
  136. 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
  137. Salmi, J. (2009). The growing accountability agenda: Progress or mixed blessing? Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 101–122. doi: 10.1787/hemp-v21-art7-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 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
  139. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). 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
  140. Shah, M. (2012). Ten years of external quality audit in Australia: Evaluating its effectiveness and success. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 761–772. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2011.572154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Shay, S. (2004). The assessment of complex performance: A socially situated interpretive act. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Snyder, B. R. (1973). The hidden curriculum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  143. Soh, K. C. (2011). Grade point average: What’s wrong and what’s the alternative? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(1), 27–36. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2011.537009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Spies-Butcher, B. (2012). Markets with equity? Lessons from Australia’s third way response to neoliberalism. In D. Cahill, F. J. B. Stilwell, & L. Edwards (Eds.), Neoliberalism: Beyond the free market (pp. 204–227). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  145. Stewart-Weeks, M. (2006). From control to networks. In H. Colebatch (Ed.), Beyond the policy cycle (pp. 184–202). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  146. Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making globalisation work. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  147. Stowell, M. (2004). Equity, justice and standards: Assessment decision making in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(4), 495–510. doi: 10.1080/02602930310001689055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Taylor, J. R. (2011). Victorian Ombudsman investigation into how universities deal with international students. Victoria: Victorian Government Printer.Google Scholar
  149. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2012). Application guide: Application for accreditation of a higher eduation course of study (AQF Qualification). Effective from 29 January 2012. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  150. The Educational Policy Committee (2000). Grade inflation at UNC – Chapel Hill: A report to the Faculty Council. Chapel Hill: Education Policy Committee. http://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/1999-00/R2000EPCGrdInfl.PDF. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  151. Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2014). Education policy-making and time. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 700–715. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.875225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment “as” learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281–294. doi: 10.1080/09695940701591867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  154. 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
  155. Vidovich, L. (2002). Quality assurance in Australian higher education: Globalisation and ‘steering at a distance’. Higher Education, 43(3), 391–408. doi: 10.1023/A:1014616110418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 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
  157. Vidovich, L. (2009). You don’t fatten the pig by weighting it: Contradictory tensions in the ‘policy pandemic’ of accountability infecting education. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 575–594). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  158. Vidovich, L., & Slee, R. (2001). Bringing universities to account? Exploring some global and local policy tensions. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 431–453. doi: 10.1080/02680930110071039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 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
  160. Watty, K. (2003). When will academics learn about quality? Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 213–221. doi: 10.1080/1353832032000151085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Webb, P. T. (2011). The evolution of accountability. Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), 735–756. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.587539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 1–24. doi: 10.3102/0091732x09350472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Wittek, L., & Kvernbekk, T. (2011). On the problems of asking for a definition of quality in education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(6), 671–684. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.594618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Woolf, H. (2004). Assessment criteria: Reflections on current practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(4), 479–493. doi: 10.1080/02602930310001689046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Yorke, D. M. (2008). Grading student achievement in higher education: Signals and shortcomings. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  166. Zajda, J. (2010). Globalisation, ideology and education policy reforms. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and education policy reforms (pp. xiii–xxii). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Zajda, J. (2014). Globalisation and neo-liberalism as educational policy in Australia. In D. Turner & H. Yolcu (Eds.), Neoliberal education reforms: A global analysis (pp. 164–183). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.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