Advertisement

Beyond Educational Policy Making

With Agent-Based Simulation
  • Atsushi YoshikawaEmail author
  • Satoshi Takahashi
Chapter
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 999)

Abstract

In recent years, formulation of educational policy has come to be based on data. That data, however, can turn out to be difficult to access, or mixed with so much noise interfering with education policy formulation, that it cannot be used directly for policy making. To address this issue, an increasing number of attempts to contribute to policy formulation have been made using agent-based simulation (ABS). In the majority of research, ABS is used in the ex post facto analysis of why educational policy has not been effective. In this paper, case studies show that by incorporating ABS into the policy formulation process, the risk of failure can be reduced. By illustrating the relationships between model level, stage of educational policy formulation and the output scenarios of ABS, it is possible to determine which types of risks can be reduced. This paper presents ABS description levels, and discusses risks that both can and cannot be expressed using ABS. We show two ways to use ABS for educational policy making by identifying risks that can be reduced and risks that cannot be dealt with by ABS.

Keywords

Educational policy making Agent-based simulation Real-world data Modeling of educational policy making 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all reviewers for their valuable comments, and Michelle Pascoe, PhD, from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Tadashi, S.: Yutorikyoiku no rinen ni kannsuru kousatstu. Kanagawa daigaku・kyouiku kennksyuu 32, 49–53 (2012). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakakibara, E.: “Yotorikyouiku” de nihon metsubou. In: Bungeishunju (eds.) The Issues in Education for you Children. Bungeishunju, Tokyo (2001). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belfield, C.R., Nores, M., Barnett, S., Schweinhart, L.: The high/scope perry preschool program cost–benefit analysis using data from the age-40 followup. J. Hum. Resour. 41(1), 162–190 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbert, N.: Agent-Based Model, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, vol. 153. SAGE Publications, London (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    UNESCO Bangkok: UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and Programming, Volume 1: Education Policy Analysis. UNESCO Bangkok (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shum, B.S.: UNESCO Policy Brief: Learning Analytics. Published by the UNESCO Instute for Information Technologies in Education, Moscow (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Textbook Publishers Association of Japan, Gakusyusidouyouryoutozissizikitokyoukasyonohakkannzikitinokannkeinituitesetumeisitekudasai. http://www.textbook.or.jp/question/answer/a04.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2018. (in Japanese)
  9. 9.
    Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Syougakkou gakusyuu sidou youryo, December 1998. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/cs/1319941.htm. Accessed 20 June 2018. (in Japanese)
  10. 10.
    Takayama, K.: A nation at risk crosses the Pacific: transnational borrowing of the US crisis discourse in the debate on education reform in Japan. Comp. Educ. Rev. 51(4), 423–446 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Gakusyusidoyoueyoutounokyouikukateinokizyuntounoarikatanitsuite, http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/021/siryo/attach/1399083.htm. Accessed 20 June 2018. (in Japanese)
  12. 12.
    Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., Rivkin, S.G., Branch, G.F.: Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. J. Public Econ. 91(5), 823–848 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., Gallimore, R.: Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: a prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. Am. Educ. Res. J. 46(4), 1006–1033 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schelling, T.C.: Dynamic models of segregation. J. Math. Sociol. 1(2), 143–186 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yano, Y., Kanzawa, A., Yamada, T., Yoshikawa, A., Terano, T.: Does small-size class improve academic abilities of students? —An analysis by agent-based approach—. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Inf. Syst. Educ. 32(4), 236–245 (2015). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    No Child Left Behind Act Is Working. https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2018
  17. 17.
    Riddle, W.: What Impact Will NCLB Waivers Have on the Consistency, Complexity and Transparency of State Accountability Systems?. Center on Education Policy, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finnigan, K.S., Gross, B.: Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. Am. Educ. Res. J. 44(3), 594–630 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dillon, S.: Schools Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math. New York Times, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meier, D.: Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Beacon Press, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sklar, E., Davies, M., Co, M.S.T.: SimEd: simulating education as a multi agent system. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 3, pp. 998–1005. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Word, E., et al.: Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Tennessee’s K-3 Class Size Study. Final Summary Report 1985-1990. Tennessee State Department of Education (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Konstantopoulos, S.: How consistent are class size effects? Eval. Rev. 35(1), 71–92 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., Ehrle, K.: Evaluating the SAGE program: a pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 21(2), 165–177 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W.: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Sci. Child. 24(2), 31–32 (1986)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aronson, E., Patnoe, S.: Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method, 3rd edn. Pinter & Martin Ltd., London (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuniyoshi, K., Kurahashi, S.: How do children learn and teach? In-class collaborative teaching simulation on the complex doubly structural network. SICE J. Control. Meas. Syst. Integr. 10(6), 520–527 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spoelstra, M., Sklar, E.: Agent-based simulation of group learning. In: Antunes, L., Paolucci, M., Norling, E. (eds.) MABS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5003, pp. 69–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70916-9_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kunigami, M., Kobayashi, M., Yamadera, S., Yamada, T., Terano, T.: A doubly structural network model and analysis on the emergence of money. In: Takadama, K., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Deffuant, G. (eds.) Simulating Interacting Agents and Social Phenomena, Agent-Based Social Systems, vol. 7, pp. 137–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99781-8_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slavin, R.E.: Student teams and achievement divisions. J. Res. Dev. Educ. 12(1), 39–49 (1978)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arai, A., Terano, T.: Yutori is considered harmful: agent-based analysis for education policy in Japan. In: Shiratori, R., Arai, K., Kato, F. (eds.) Gaming, Simulations, and Society, pp. 129–136. Springer, Tokyo (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-26797-2_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitchell, D.E., Beach, S.A., Badaral, G.: Modeling the relationship between achievement and class size: a re-analysis of the Tennessee project star data. Peabody J. Educ. 67, 34–74 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoshikawa, A., Takahashi, S.: Review on educational application of agent technologies. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Inf. Syst. Educ. 35(1), 5–12 (2018). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mulkey, L.M., Catsambis, S., Steelman, L.C., Crain, R.L.: The long-term effects of ability grouping in mathematics: a national investigation. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 8(2), 137–177 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyYokohama-shiJapan
  2. 2.Tokyo University of ScienceChiyoda-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations