Search results

This policy brief, the third in the AERI-NEPC eBrief series “Understanding validity issues around the world”, discusses validity issues surrounding International Large Scale Assessment (ILSA) programs. ILSA programs, such as the well-known Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), are rapidly expanding around the world today. In this eBrief, the authors examine what “validity” means when applied to published results and reports of programs like the PISA.

This policy brief is based on a synthesis of conference proceedings and review of selected pieces of extant literature. It begins by summarizing perspectives of an invited expert panel on the topic. To that synthesis, the authors add their own analysis of key issues. They conclude by offering recommendations for test developers and test users.

ILSA programs and tests, while offering valuable information, should be read and used cautiously and in context. All parties need to be on the same page to maximize valid use of ILSA results, to obtain the greatest educational and social benefits, and to minimize negative consequences. The authors propose several recommendations for test makers and ILSA program leaders, and ILSA users. To ILSA leaders and researchers: provide more cautionary information about how to correctly interpret the ILSA results, particularly country rankings, given contextual differences among nations. Provide continuing psychometric or research resources so as to address or reduce various sources of error in reports. Encourage policy makers in different nations to share the responsibility for ensuring more contextualized (and valid) interpretations of ILSA reports and subsequent policy development. Raise awareness among policy makers to look beyond simple rankings and pay more attention to inter-country differences. For consumers of ILSA results and reports: read the fine print, not just the country rankings, to interpret ILSA results correctly in particular regions/nations. When looking to high-ranking countries as role models, be sure to consider the “whole picture”. Use ILSA data as complements to other national- and state-level educational assessments to better gauge the status of the country's education system and subsequent policy directions.

By translating complex information on validity issues with all concerned ILSA stakeholders in mind, this policy brief will improve uses and applications of ILSA information in national and regional policy contexts.

This paper presents a moderated discussion on popular misconceptions, benefits and limitations of International Large-Scale Assessment (ILSA) programs, clarifying how ILSA results could be more appropriately interpreted and used in public policy contexts in the USA and elsewhere in the world.

To bring key issues, points-of-view and recommendations on the theme to light, the method used is a “moderated policy discussion”. Nine commentaries were invited to represent voices of leading ILSA scholars/researchers and measurement experts, juxtaposed against views of prominent leaders of education systems in the USA that participate in ILSA programs. The discussion is excerpted from a recent blog published by Education Week. It is moderated with introductory remarks from the guest editor and concluding recommendations from an ILSA researcher who did not participate in the original blog. References and author biographies are presented at the end of the article.

Together, the commentaries address historical, methodological, socio-political and policy issues surrounding ILSA programs vis-à-vis the major goals of education and larger societal concerns. Authors offer recommendations for improving the international studies themselves and for making reports more transparent for educators and the public to facilitate greater understanding of their purposes, meanings and policy implications.

When assessment policies are implemented from the top down, as is often the case with ILSA program participation, educators and leaders in school systems tend to be left out of the conversation. This article is intended to foster a productive two-way dialogue among key ILSA actors that can serve as a stepping-stone to more concerted policy actions within and across national education systems.

Through a survey of 200 employees working in five of the thirty establishments analysed in previous research about the microeconomic effects of reducing the working time (Cahier 25), the consequences on employees of such a reduction can be assessed; and relevant attitudes and aspirations better known.

Dewey, through his contributions to pragmatism (America’s sole original philosophy), has long been considered relative to symbolic interactionism (SI), which emerged from that philosophy. His impact on SI, while falling short of those of Mead and Cooley, has mainly come from (and has been limited to) concepts and insights developed in Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology (1922/1957) and his earlier, seminal, article, “The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology,” published in 1896 during his tenure at the University of Chicago (1894–1904). SI, however, has wrongly ignored Dewey’s political theory, especially his concept of domination. In order to rectify this inattention, I summarize the social and historical contexts that motivated Dewey’s turn toward domination; outline the radical nature of his political theory; illustrate similarities of his political theory with Marx’s; expatiate on his concept of domination, including his argument for social practices to reduce surplus domination; and explicate the theoretical and political implications of taking his political theory seriously.

Firm-specific human capital (FSHC) has been an integral part of the vocabulary in the strategy field. Many scholars argue that FSHC inhibits employee mobility and drives employee retention at a discount, value appropriation, and firms' competitive advantage. FSHC also plays a central role in the resource-based view of the firm. In recent years, however, a significant debate has emerged on the validity and usefulness of the construct. The purpose of the chapter is to revisit this debate and discuss both challenges and opportunities related to FSHC. In a form of conversation, we take aim at FSHC from different angles and discuss its role as a mobility friction, in value appropriation of established firms, in the context of transitions between paid employment and entrepreneurship, and in the views of practitioners. While we agree that our understanding of the concept of FSHC must evolve, we continue to see its value in our theoretical toolbox.

This chapter identifies and analyzes three systemic obstacles to American public policy addressing natural disasters: symbolic obstacles, cognitive obstacles, and structural obstacles. The way we talk about natural disaster, the way we think about the risks of building in hazardous places, and structural aspects of American political institutions all favor development over restraint. These forces have such strength that in the wake of most disasters society automatically and thoughtlessly responds by rebuilding what was damaged or destroyed, even if reconstruction perpetuates disaster vulnerability. Only by addressing each of the obstacles identified are reform efforts likely to succeed.

I suppose that most noticeable of all the changes in our profession since I came into it has been the multiplicity of the methods by which one can become a librarian. A. E. Standley says in a recent article in the L.A.R., in 1970: “The term librarian includes the Library Association chartered librarian, the graduate with a degree in librarianship, the scholar librarian, the information and intelligence officer, the translator, the abstracter, the non‐library‐qualified subject expert”.

This article provides a broad overview of telecommunications and network‐related technologies. Topics covered include identification and review of network elements, analog and digital signals, synchronous and asynchronous transmission formats, transmission media and equipment, transmission techniques and characteristics, multiplexing, network types, access technologies, network architectures and topologies, local‐area network technologies and attributes, protocols and protocol issues, gateways, internetworking, local networking alternatives, equipment certification, and various aspects of network management. It is intended to provide the practicing professional in the field of library and information science with a broad, up‐to‐date technical review that might serve to support and facilitate further investigation of current developments in networks and networking. Although the broad range of topics is not treated in depth, numerous references are provided for further investigation.

This paper aims to explore the likelihood that face-to-face (FTF) interviewing will continue to be the “gold standard” survey interviewing method, to which all other modes are compared, in an era in which daily communicative habits for many now involve selecting among many alternative modes.

After outlining what is known about the purported benefits and drawbacks of FTF interviewing, the paper reviews recent findings that raise questions about whether FTF interviewing still produces the highest rates of participation, best data quality and greatest respondent satisfaction.

Results of several studies suggest that at least for some respondents, asynchronous interviewing modes that reduce the interviewer’s social presence and allow respondents to participate while they are mobile or multitasking (in particular, text messaging) may well lead to higher quality data and greater respondent satisfaction.

To the extent that these findings generalize, the implication is that FTF interviewing will continue to be needed for at least some respondents, but multiple trends suggest that it is likely to be one mode among many, and that the assumption that it is always needed or that it always leads to the highest quality data no longer holds.

Exploring when and how FTF interviewing will continue to be needed is particularly important given FTF’s financial and social costs, in an era of budgetary challenges and new questioning about which data sources are essential and lead to trustworthy information.