QAA 的学科基准和批判性教学法:进入国王学院的途径 "范例

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
John Armstrong
{"title":"QAA 的学科基准和批判性教学法:进入国王学院的途径 \"范例","authors":"John Armstrong","doi":"10.1002/berj.4059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The UK's Quality Assurance Association for Higher Education (QAA) recommend that all undergraduate courses at UK universities include in their curricula elements of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education; and Education for Sustainable Development. This paper examines the detail of the QAA's recommendations and finds that they are significantly influenced by critical pedagogy. While the potential benefits of the QAA's recommendations are readily apparent, the paper identifies a number of potential risks, including opportunity costs for students, dumbing down and political bias. Alongside this theoretical analysis, this paper presents a case study which examines in detail the course materials of a cross‐curricular module piloted at King's College London called the ‘King's First Year: Gateway to King's’ which covered essentially the same themes. It appears that many of the risks identified with the QAA's approach would have been realised had this module been introduced as a compulsory module for all undergraduates at King's College London as was originally planned. As student take‐up was low, it was abandoned after the pilot, and so ultimately the risks were not realised. When introducing significant curriculum changes such as those proposed by the QAA, it is important to be certain that the benefits outweigh the risks. For this reason, a case study of an unsuccessful educational intervention is valuable and may correct for the possibility of publication bias in the literature if institutions choose not to publicise their less successful projects.","PeriodicalId":51410,"journal":{"name":"British Educational Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The QAA's subject benchmarks and critical pedagogy: The example of ‘gateway to King's’\",\"authors\":\"John Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/berj.4059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The UK's Quality Assurance Association for Higher Education (QAA) recommend that all undergraduate courses at UK universities include in their curricula elements of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education; and Education for Sustainable Development. This paper examines the detail of the QAA's recommendations and finds that they are significantly influenced by critical pedagogy. While the potential benefits of the QAA's recommendations are readily apparent, the paper identifies a number of potential risks, including opportunity costs for students, dumbing down and political bias. Alongside this theoretical analysis, this paper presents a case study which examines in detail the course materials of a cross‐curricular module piloted at King's College London called the ‘King's First Year: Gateway to King's’ which covered essentially the same themes. It appears that many of the risks identified with the QAA's approach would have been realised had this module been introduced as a compulsory module for all undergraduates at King's College London as was originally planned. As student take‐up was low, it was abandoned after the pilot, and so ultimately the risks were not realised. When introducing significant curriculum changes such as those proposed by the QAA, it is important to be certain that the benefits outweigh the risks. For this reason, a case study of an unsuccessful educational intervention is valuable and may correct for the possibility of publication bias in the literature if institutions choose not to publicise their less successful projects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Educational Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Educational Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4059\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国高等教育质量保证协会(QAA)建议,英国大学的所有本科课程都应包含平等、多样性和包容性、企业和创业教育以及可持续发展教育等内容。本文研究了 QAA 建议的细节,发现这些建议在很大程度上受到了批判教学法的影响。虽然 QAA 建议的潜在益处显而易见,但本文也指出了一些潜在风险,包括学生的机会成本、钝化和政治偏见。在进行理论分析的同时,本文还提供了一个案例研究,详细分析了伦敦国王学院试行的跨学科模块 "国王第一年 "的课程材料:通往国王学院之路 "的跨课程模块的教材,该模块涵盖了基本相同的主题。如果按照最初的计划,将该模块作为伦敦国王学院所有本科生的必修模块,那么QAA方法中发现的许多风险似乎都会实现。由于学生的参与率很低,试点结束后就放弃了,因此最终没有实现风险。在对课程进行重大改革(如英国高等教育质量评估局提出的改革)时,重要的是要确定利大于弊。因此,对一项不成功的教育干预措施进行案例研究是很有价值的,而且可以纠正文献中可能存在的出版偏差(如果院校选择不公布其不太成功的项目)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The QAA's subject benchmarks and critical pedagogy: The example of ‘gateway to King's’
The UK's Quality Assurance Association for Higher Education (QAA) recommend that all undergraduate courses at UK universities include in their curricula elements of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education; and Education for Sustainable Development. This paper examines the detail of the QAA's recommendations and finds that they are significantly influenced by critical pedagogy. While the potential benefits of the QAA's recommendations are readily apparent, the paper identifies a number of potential risks, including opportunity costs for students, dumbing down and political bias. Alongside this theoretical analysis, this paper presents a case study which examines in detail the course materials of a cross‐curricular module piloted at King's College London called the ‘King's First Year: Gateway to King's’ which covered essentially the same themes. It appears that many of the risks identified with the QAA's approach would have been realised had this module been introduced as a compulsory module for all undergraduates at King's College London as was originally planned. As student take‐up was low, it was abandoned after the pilot, and so ultimately the risks were not realised. When introducing significant curriculum changes such as those proposed by the QAA, it is important to be certain that the benefits outweigh the risks. For this reason, a case study of an unsuccessful educational intervention is valuable and may correct for the possibility of publication bias in the literature if institutions choose not to publicise their less successful projects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Educational Research Journal
British Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The British Educational Research Journal is an international peer reviewed medium for the publication of articles of interest to researchers in education and has rapidly become a major focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world. For further information on the association please visit the British Educational Research Association web site. The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes reports of case studies, experiments and surveys, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues and of underlying assumptions in educational research, accounts of research in progress, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信