学生办公室的证据标准合适吗? ?为什么它对扩大参与很重要

T. Fryer
{"title":"学生办公室的证据标准合适吗? ?为什么它对扩大参与很重要","authors":"T. Fryer","doi":"10.5456/wpll.24.3.189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This debate paper argues that the Office for Students (OfS) has adopted standards of evidence that are inappropriate. These standards offer a problematic typology of different evaluation types, present a flawed hierarchy, and over-prioritise experimental approaches. As the OfS uses\n these standards of evidence to guide the evaluation of widening participation (WP) activities, this risks misrepresenting the evidence base for different activities, and prioritising methods that may not be the most appropriate. The goal of developing explanations of how WP activities work\n in particular contexts requires a more nuanced approach to evaluation. Recommendations are made for future practice: the OfS should review its standards of evidence and there should be greater debate in this area, evaluation should assess how WP activities work in particular contexts, and\n practitioners should make use of theory-driven, qualitative methods.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are t he Office for Students' standards of evidence appropriate? Why it matters for widening participation\",\"authors\":\"T. Fryer\",\"doi\":\"10.5456/wpll.24.3.189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This debate paper argues that the Office for Students (OfS) has adopted standards of evidence that are inappropriate. These standards offer a problematic typology of different evaluation types, present a flawed hierarchy, and over-prioritise experimental approaches. As the OfS uses\\n these standards of evidence to guide the evaluation of widening participation (WP) activities, this risks misrepresenting the evidence base for different activities, and prioritising methods that may not be the most appropriate. The goal of developing explanations of how WP activities work\\n in particular contexts requires a more nuanced approach to evaluation. Recommendations are made for future practice: the OfS should review its standards of evidence and there should be greater debate in this area, evaluation should assess how WP activities work in particular contexts, and\\n practitioners should make use of theory-driven, qualitative methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.24.3.189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.24.3.189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇辩论论文认为,学生办公室(OfS)采用的证据标准是不恰当的。这些标准为不同的评估类型提供了一个有问题的类型学,呈现了一个有缺陷的层次结构,并且过度优先考虑实验方法。由于OfS使用这些证据标准来指导扩大参与(WP)活动的评估,这可能会歪曲不同活动的证据基础,并优先考虑可能不是最合适的方法。要想解释WP活动在特定环境下的工作方式,需要一种更细致的评估方法。对未来的实践提出了建议:OfS应该审查其证据标准,并在这一领域进行更多的辩论,评估应该评估WP活动在特定背景下的工作方式,从业者应该使用理论驱动的定性方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are t he Office for Students' standards of evidence appropriate? Why it matters for widening participation
This debate paper argues that the Office for Students (OfS) has adopted standards of evidence that are inappropriate. These standards offer a problematic typology of different evaluation types, present a flawed hierarchy, and over-prioritise experimental approaches. As the OfS uses these standards of evidence to guide the evaluation of widening participation (WP) activities, this risks misrepresenting the evidence base for different activities, and prioritising methods that may not be the most appropriate. The goal of developing explanations of how WP activities work in particular contexts requires a more nuanced approach to evaluation. Recommendations are made for future practice: the OfS should review its standards of evidence and there should be greater debate in this area, evaluation should assess how WP activities work in particular contexts, and practitioners should make use of theory-driven, qualitative methods.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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