Data residing in institutional and system-level record systems are often under-exploited as a resource for decision-making. Whilst the data might neither have the characteristics, nor meet the quality demanded, of formal research projects, their relative availability offers advantages to the policy-maker and practitioner. This article illustrates with a number of examples the potential of available data for informing policy and practice at different levels within an education system.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Adelman, C. (2004). The empirical curriculum: Changes in postsecondary course-taking, 1972–2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Armstrong, M., Clarkson, P., & Noble, M. (1998). Modularity and credit frameworks: The NUCCAT survey and 1998 conference report. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer.
Baty, P. (2000). V-c’s ‘plea for firsts’ fuels quality fears. The Times Higher Education Supplement, No. 1442 (30 June), 1.
Baume, D., & Yorke, M. (2002). The reliability of assessment by portfolio on a course to develop and accredit teachers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 7–25.
Baume, D., Yorke, M., & Coffey, M. (2004). What is happening when we assess, and how can we use our understanding of this to improve assessment? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 451–477.
Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. (1994). Pointing the way: Indicators as policy tools in higher education. In: S. S. Ruppert (Ed.), Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook on state-level performance indicators (pp. 6–16). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
HESA (2005). Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK 2003/04. See http://www.hesa.ac.uk/pi/0304/home.htm (accessed 16 January 2006).
Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer.
Simonite, V. (2000). The effects of aggregation method and variations in the performance of individual students on degree classifications in modular degree courses. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 197–209.
UUK & SCoP. (2004). Measuring and recording student achievement [Report of the Scoping Group chaired by Professor Robert Burgess]. London: Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals.
UUK & SCoP. (2005). The UK honours degree: Provision of information [Consultation Paper from the Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Steering Group, the “Burgess Group”]. London: Universities UK and Standing Conference of Principals.
Volkwein, J. F. (1999). The four faces of institutional research. In: J. F. Volkwein (Eds.), What is institutional research all about? A critical and comprehensive assessment of the profession [New Directions for Institutional Research No. 104] (pp. 9–19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yorke, M. (2002). Degree classifications in English, Welsh and Northern Irish Universities: Trends, 1994–95 to 1998–99. Higher Education Quarterly, 56, 92–108.
Yorke, M. (2004). Institutional research and its relevance to the performance of higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 141–152.
Yorke, M., Barnett, G., Evanson, P., Haines, C., Jenkins, D., Knight, P., Scurry, D., Stowell, M., & Woolf, H. (2004). Some effects of the award algorithm on honours degree classifications in UK higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 399–411.
About this article
Cite this article
Yorke, M. Gold in them there hills? Extracting and using data from existing sources. Tert Educ Manag 12, 201–213 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-006-9001-8
- High Education
- High Education Institution
- Equal Opportunity
- Summative Assessment
- High Education Sector