Search results

The Teaching Excellence Framework was explicitly introduced as a mechanism to ‘enhance teaching’ in universities. This chapter suggests, however, that the highly complex ‘black box’ methodology used to calculate TEF outcomes effectively blunts its purpose as a policy lever. As a result, TEF appears to function primarily as performative policy act, merely gesturing towards a concern with social mobility. Informed by the data and metrics driven Deliverology approach to public management, I suggest the opacity of the TEF's assessment approach enables policymakers to distance themselves from and sidestep the wicked problems raised by the complicated contexts of contemporary higher education learning and teaching. At the same time, however, I argue that the very indeterminacy through which the framework achieves this sleight of hand creates a space in which engaged teaching practitioners can push through a more progressive approach to inclusive success.

Civic engagement means more than formal participation in the political process. Students can experience civic life across campus in ways that may not jump off the page as being relevant on first reading. Whether in the classroom through intentionally designed curricular experiences or through participating in a student organization focused on civic engagement, higher education should be helping develop students as active, participatory citizens. This chapter aims to provide the first look at how students across the United States are organizing on college campuses to participate in the political process.

The mid-1990s marked a paradigm shift in the way physical activity is promoted, and walking is now considered the most suitable type of physical activity for widespread promotion. Accurate measurement underpins public health practice, hence the aims of this chapter are to: (1) provide a typology for the measurement of walking; (2) review methods to assess walking; (3) present challenges in defining walking measures; (4) identify issues in selecting instruments for the evaluation of walking and (5) discuss current efforts to overcome measurement challenges and methodological limitations. The taxonomy of walking indicates that secondary purpose walking is a more complex set of behaviours than primary purpose walks. It has many purposes and no specific domain or intensity, may lack regularity, and therefore poses greater measurement challenges. Objective measurement methods, such as accelerometers, pedometers, smartphones and other electronic devices, have shown good approximation for walking energy expenditure, but are indirect methods of walking assessment. Global Positioning System technology, the ‘Smartmat’ and radio-frequency identification tags are potential objective methods that can distinguish walkers, but also require complex analysis, are costly, and still need their measurement properties corroborated. Subjective direct methods, such as questionnaires, diaries and direct observation, provide the richest information on walking, especially short-term diaries, such as trip records and time use records, and are particularly useful for assessing secondary purpose walking. A unifying measure for health research, surveillance and health promotion would strongly advance the understanding of the impact of walking on health.

Problems and issues surrounding the use of discrepancy in identifying learning disability are reviewed. Since 1976, discrepancy has been the primary criterion for defining learning disability in practice. In a psychometric and statistical sense, however, issues about the best means for calculating a discrepancy remain unresolved. Another problem involves divergent findings about how systematically and rigorously the discrepancy criterion has been applied in practice. The problems and issues have resulted in questions about the status of learning disability as an independent category of special education. It is possible, however, to demonstrate that learning disability can be reliably differentiated from other conditions and that discrepancy is a major factor in demonstrating the differences. Consequently, it is concluded that discrepancy is a legitimate theoretical concept and should be considered as a necessary criterion for the identification of learning disability.