Policy Aspects: How to Change Practice and in What Direction

  • Jens Dolin
  • Jesper Bruun
  • Costas P. Constantinou
  • Justin Dillon
  • Doris Jorde
  • Peter Labudde
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

The ASSIST-ME project has a dual aim: (1) to provide a research base on the effective uptake of formative and summative assessment for inquiry-based, competence-oriented Science, Technology and Mathematics (STM) education and (2) to use this research base to give policy-makers and other stakeholders guidelines for ensuring that assessment enhances learning in STM education. This chapter describes how the second aim, the policy-oriented aspects, was dealt with in ASSIST-ME. It describes the establishment of National Stakeholder Panels (NSP) through the use of social network analysis as well as the work and outcomes of the national NSPs. In a wider perspective, it analyses how research results have and can influence STM education, both the educational practices and the political climate and decisions framing education. At this point, the chapter goes beyond ASSIST-ME and draws upon other project experiences across Europe. Finally, the policy recommendations for the transformation process based on the ASSIST-ME experiences will be put forward.

References

  1. Blackmore, J. (1988). Assessment and accountability. Victoria: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  2. Bruun, J., Dolin, J., & Evans, R. (2015). At the policy-research interface: Usefulness of social network analysis in identifying and selecting key stakeholders. NARST2015.Google Scholar
  3. D-EDK, Deutschschweizer Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren. (2014a). Lehrplan 21: Natur und Technik, 3. Zyklus. Luzern: D-EDK.Google Scholar
  4. D-EDK, Deutschschweizer Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren. (2014b). Lehrplan 21: Grundlagen. Luzern: D-EDK.Google Scholar
  5. Dolin, J. (Ed.). (2013). ASSIST-ME proposal. http://assistme.ku.dk/resources/. Accessed 18 Feb 2017.
  6. EDK, Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren. (2011). Grundkompetenzen für die Naturwissenschaften. Bern: Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren. Retrieved March 6, 2017, from http://edudoc.ch/record/96787/files/grundkomp_nawi_d.pdf
  7. European Commission. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  8. Fensham, P. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Wiley InterScience.Google Scholar
  9. Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69–72.Google Scholar
  10. Harlen, W. (2007). Holding up a mirror to classroom practice. Primary Science Review, 100, 29–31.Google Scholar
  11. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Jaafar, S. B., & Anderson, S. (2007). Policy trends and tensions in accountability for educational management and services in Canada. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 207–227.Google Scholar
  13. Labudde, P. (2007). How to develop, implement and assess standards in science education? 12 Challenges from a Swiss perspective. In D. Waddington, P. Nentwig, & S. Schanze (Eds.), Making it comparable: Standards in science education (pp. 277–301). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  14. Labudde, P., Nidegger, C., Adamina, M., & Gingins, F. (2012). The development, validation, and implementation of standards in science education: Chances and difficulties in the Swiss project HarmoS. In: S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig (Hrsg.). Making it tangible: Learning outcomes in science education (S. 235–259). Münster/New York/München/Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  15. Laveault, D. (2015). Assessment policy enactment in education systems: A few reasons to be optimistic. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation. Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Looney, J. W. (2011). Integrating formative and summative assessment: Progress toward a seamless system? Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: A report with ten recommendations. King’s College London, School of Education.Google Scholar
  19. OECD. (2011). Evaluation and assessment frameworks for improving school outcomes. Common policy challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/oecdreviewonevaluationandassessmentframeworksforimprovingschooloutcomespapersandstudies.htm. Accessed 18 Feb 2017.
  20. OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/synergies-for-better-learning.htm. Accessed 18 Feb 2017.
  21. OECD/CERI. (2005). Assessment for learning – Formative assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. OECD. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies. Policy Report. OECD, Global Science Forum.Google Scholar
  23. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. SCORE. (n.d.). SCORE principles: The assessment of practical work. Available at: http://www.score-education.org/media/14286/score%20principles%20for%20the%20assessment%20of%20practical%20work%202014.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2017.
  25. Scott, S. (2010). The theory and practice divide in relation to teacher professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 20–40). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  27. Shelley II, M. C. (2009). Speaking Truth to Power with Powerful Results: Impacting Public Awareness and Public Policy. In: Shelley II, M.C. et al. (eds.), Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education. Springer.Google Scholar
  28. SWiSE. (2017). Swiss science education. Retrieved March 6, 2017, from www.swise.ch

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Dolin
    • 1
  • Jesper Bruun
    • 1
  • Costas P. Constantinou
    • 2
  • Justin Dillon
    • 3
  • Doris Jorde
    • 4
  • Peter Labudde
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of CyprusLatsiaCyprus
  3. 3.University of BristolBristolUK
  4. 4.ILS, University of OsloOsloNorway
  5. 5.Fachhochschule NordwestschweizPädagogische HochschuleBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations