Abstract
AbstractAlthough there has been intense criticism of NAPLAN in educational policy debates in Australia, little scholarly efforts have been made to understand the underlying cognitive mechanisms that contribute to the public narrative about the national testing program. We aim to provide tentative evidence about the way public perceptions about NAPLAN may be formed. Our results show empirical support for the incentive, interpretative, and institutional effects, which suggest ways that national testing program can be improved. That is, it needs to (a) provide a diverse range of incentives to promote people’s self-interest (incentive effect); (b) demonstrate good alignment with the core values, social norms, and attitudes of the given society (interpretative effect); and (c) build a consensus about the institutional use of the test results (institutional effect). We conclude with practical implications and recommendations about seeking public support for the seemingly unpopular national educational policy.
Funder
University of New South Wales
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Education
Reference56 articles.
1. Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies. Georgetown University Press.
2. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302.
3. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
4. Brady, L. (2013). NAPLAN: Critiquing the criticisms. Curriculum and Teaching, 28(1), 47–55.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献