Advertisement

Moving PISA Results into the Policy Arena: Perspectives on Knowledge Transfer for Future Considerations and Preparations

  • Larry D. Yore
  • John O. AndersonEmail author
  • Mei-Hung Chiu
Article

ABSTRACT

Evidence-based policies, decisions, and practices are highly valued and underachieved in the international mathematics and science education reforms. Many in the mathematics and science education research communities lament the lack of influence that research results have on the education profession, schools, and teaching. Academic research done in isolation of end-users—with the faint hope that teachers, politicians, and bureaucrats will access and utilise these results to inform curriculum, assessment, and instruction and to influence public policy—has not worked. Some funding agencies require dissemination of research and development results to the broader political and education communities; therefore, applicants agree to these requirements without fully realizing the breadth of these demands. However, to achieve such knowledge transfer requirements, researchers need to become more (a) aware of the needs, players, and processes of ‘speaking truth to power’; (b) active in knowledge transfer and influencing public policy; and (c) alert to values and normative premises of the policy makers. This article outlines the essential principles, barriers within the academic community, international efforts, and future considerations for knowledge transfer regarding international assessments. Specific articles on PISA 2000, 2003, and 2006 included in this special issue are used to illustrate these insights into verification of curricular influences, educational opportunity and equality, regional comparisons, and direct influence on policy.

KEY WORDS

educational policy evidence-based policies/decisions knowledge transfer Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) speaking truth to power 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-H., & Yore, L. D. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue. First cycle of PISA (2000-2006)—International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9210-y
  4. Anderson, J. O., Lin, H.-L., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P., & Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large-scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. O., Milford, T., Jagger, S., & Yore, L. D. (2009, April). National influences on science education reform in Canada. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA. Google Scholar
  6. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Brickhouse, N. W. (2006). Celebrating 90 years of Science Education: reflections on the gold standard and ways of promoting good research [Editorial]. Science Education, 90(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. W., Fensham, P. J., & Laurie, R. (Eds.). (2009). Scientific literacy and contexts in PISA science [Special Issue]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 861–960.Google Scholar
  9. Coertjens, L., Boeve-de Pauw, J., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Do schools make a difference in their students’ environmental attitudes and awareness? Evidence from PISA 2006. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9200-0
  10. Cohn, D. (2007). How can academics influence public policy? Academic Matters, 18–19.Google Scholar
  11. Dolin, J., & Krogh, L. B. (2010). The relevance and consequences of PISA science in a Danish context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9207-6
  12. Duke, N. K. (2010). R&D: The real-world reading and writing U.S. children need. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 68–71.Google Scholar
  13. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700e.pdf.
  14. Fensham, P. J. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Science Education, 93(6), 1076–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, C. L., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997, March). Reforms, visions, and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406168).Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, T., & Wößmann, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32(2), 433–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giles, C. (2010, February 5). UK QE: Policy-based evidence-making. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2010/02/04/uk-quantitative-easing-policy-based-evidence-making/.
  18. Gilleece, L., Cosgrove, J., & Sofroniou, N. (2010). Equity in mathematics and science outcomes: Characteristics associated with high and low achievement on PISA 2006 in Ireland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9199-2
  19. Gist, J. R. (1998). Decision making in public administration. In J. Rabin, W. B. Hildreth, & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 265–292). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  20. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (vol. 7 of Studies in Writing, pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hess, F. M. (2008). The politics of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 354–356.Google Scholar
  22. Ho, E. S. C. (2010). Family influences on science learning among Hong Kong adolescents: What we learned from PISA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9198-3
  23. Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Infusing educational decision making with research. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 54–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Knipprath, H. (2010). What PISA tells us about the quality and inequality of Japanese education in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9196-5
  25. Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Science Communication, 1(4), 537–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kubiatko, M., & Vlckova, K. (2010). The relationship between ICT use and science knowledge for Czech students: A secondary analysis of PISA 2006. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9195-6
  27. Landry, R., Lamari, M., & Amara, N. (2003). The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marmot, M. G. (2004). Evidence based policy or policy based evidence? British Medical Journal, 328(7445), 906–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2010). Science and mathematics achievement in Australia: The role of school socioeconomic composition in educational equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9197-4
  31. Milford, T. (2009). An investigation of international science achievement using the OECD’s PISA 2006 dataset. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Milford, T., Ross, S. P., & Anderson, J. O. (2010). An opportunity to better understand schooling: The growing presence of PISA in the Americas. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9201-z
  33. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neumann, K., Fischer, H. E., & Kauertz, A. (2010). From PISA to educational standards: The impact of large-scale assessments on science education in Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9206-7
  35. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Macnab, J. S. (2009). The gold standard and knowing what to do. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 603–620). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework—mathematics, reading, science and problem solving: Knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Rees, W. E. (2008). Science, cognition and public policy. Academic Matters, 9–12.Google Scholar
  40. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, S. P. (2008). Motivation correlates of academic achievement: Exploring how motivation influences academic achievement in the PISA 2003 dataset. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  42. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–61.Google Scholar
  43. Shelley, M. C., II. (2009). Speaking truth to power with powerful results: Impacting public awareness and public policy. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 443–466). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Those who read well at 15 succeed (2010, February 11). The Globe and Mail, p. A20. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/those-who-read-well-at-15-succeed/article1465434/.
  45. United States National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association (1996). Standards for English language arts. Urbana, IL, & Newark, DE: Authors.Google Scholar
  46. United States National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. United States National Research Council (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. United States National Research Council (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yore, L. D., Shelley, M. C., II, & Hand, B. (2009). Reflections on beyond the Gold Standards era and ways of promoting compelling arguments about science literacy for all. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 623–649). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry D. Yore
    • 1
  • John O. Anderson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mei-Hung Chiu
    • 2
  1. 1.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Taiwan National Normal UniversityTaipeiRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations