On the Use of Cross Impact Analysis for Enhancing Performance in Primary School Education

  • Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu
  • Linet Ozdamar
  • Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 73)

Abstract

The system dynamics approach is a holistic way of solving problems in real-time scenarios. The Cross Impact Analysis (CIA) is a system dynamics method that enables the construction of a model relating entities and attributes relevant to a system. Then, the CIA simulates the model construct and observes the changing system status. The CIA permits the integration of policies into the model construct and enables the comparison of the simulated system with the one that is augmented by policies. Thereby, it is possible to observe policy effects on future system status. Here, we describe how CIA is utilized to enhance student enrolment and performance with simulated government policies in two developing countries.

Keywords

Child Labor Enrollment Rate Policy Variable Economic Difficulty Desirable State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Hanife Akar (Dept of Educational Sciences, Middle East Technical University), Prof. L. S. Ganesh (Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India) for their fruitful discussions. We also wish to thank Mrs. Anupama Pedamallu for helping us with data entry.

References

  1. 1.
    Admassu, K.: Primary school enrollment and progression in ethiopia: family and school factors. In: American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Boston, 31st July 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akar, H.: Poverty, and schooling in Turkey: a needs assessment study. In: Presentation at Workshop on Complex Societal Problems, Sustainable Living and Development, IAM, METU, Ankara, 13–16 May 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akar, H.: Challenges for schools in communities with internal migration flows. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 30, 263–276 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aksel, S., Gun, Z., YlmazIrmak, T., Celenci, B.: Migration and psychological status of adolescents in Turkey. Adolescence 42(167), 589–602 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altamirano, M.A., van Daalen, C.E.: A system dynamics model of primary and secondary education in Nicaragua. In: 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Oxford, 25–29 July 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baslevent, C., Dayioglu, M.: The effect of squatter housing on income distribution in Urban Turkey. Urban Stud. 42(1), 32–45 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benson, H.: Household demand for primary schooling in ethiopia: preliminary findings. In: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 18–22 April 1995Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruns, B., Mingat, A., Ramahatra, R.: Achieving Universal Primary Education by 2015, a Chance for Every Child. The World Bank, Washington, DC (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goksen, F., Cemalciler, F.: Social capital and cultural distance as predictors of early school dropout: implications for community action for Turkish internal migrants. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 34,163–175 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon, T.J., Hayward, H.: Initial experiments with the cross-impact matrix method of forecasting. Futures 1, 100–116 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanushek, E.A., Lavy, V., Kohtaro, H.: Do students care about school quality? Determinants of dropout behavior in developing countries. J. Hum. Cap. 2(1), 69–105 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayashi, A., Tokimatsu, K., Yamamoto, H., Mori, S.: Narrative scenario development based on cross-impact analysis for the evaluation of global-warming mitigation options. Appl. Energy 83(10), 1062–1075 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Julius, K.: A primer for a new cross-impact language: KSIM. In: Harold, A.L., Murray, T. (eds.) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kagitcibasi, C., Cemalcilar, Z., Baydar, N.: Children of rural to urban migration: an integrative intervention for adaptation to social change. ISSBD Bull. 1(55),10–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karadeli, N., Kaya, O., Keskin, B.B.: Dynamic Modeling of Basic Education in Turkey. Senior graduation project, Bogazici university, Turkey (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kulu, H., Billari, F.: Multilevel analysis of internal migration in a transitional country: the case of Estonia. Reg. Stud. 38(6), 679–696 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lane, D.C.: Social theory and system dynamics practice. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 113(3), 501–527 (1999)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mohapatra, P.K.J., Mandal, P., Bora, M.C.: Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling. Universities Press (India) Limited, Hyderabad (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pedamallu, C.S.: Externally aided construction of school rooms for primary classes- preparation of project report. Master’s dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedamallu, C.S., Ozdamar, L., Kropat, E., Weber, G-W.: A system dynamics model for intentional transmission of HIV/AIDS using cross impact analysis. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2010). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10100-010-0183-2
  21. 21.
    Rena, R.: Factors affecting the enrolment and the retention of students at primary education. Essays Educ. 22, 102–112 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sahin, I.: Cultural responsiveness of school curriculum and students’ failure in Turkey. Interchange 34(4), 383–420 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Serg, T.: School Construction Strategies for Universal Primary Education in Africa. The World Bank, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terlou, B., van Kuijk, E., Vennix, J.A.M.: A system dynamics model of efficiency of primary education in Latin America. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, pp. 578–587 (1991)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thorleuchter, D., Van den Poel, D., Prinzie, A.: A compared R&D-based and patent-based cross impact analysis for identifying relationships between technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77(7),1037–1050 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Torres, N., Olaya, C.: Tackling the mess: causal-loop conceptualization of solid waste management systems through cross-impact. In: 28th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Seoul, 25–29 July 2010Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsui, M.: Family income, home environment, parenting, and mathematics achievement of children in China and the United States. Educ. Urban Soc. 37(3), 336–355 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weimer-Jehle, W.: Cross-impact balances: a system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73(4), 334–361 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu, G.: Application of cross-impact analysis to the relationship between aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 allele and the flusing syndrome. Alcohol Alcoholism 35(1), 55–59 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Linet Ozdamar
    • 3
  • Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Medical OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  2. 2.The Broad Institute of MIT and HarvardCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Systems EngineeringYeditepe UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Institute of Applied MathematicsMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations