‘Closing the gap’: Problems with its philosophy and research – A keynote address prepared for BPS Education Section Conference, September 2019

Author:

Raven John

Abstract

In this paper, problems with the philosophy and research relating to various interpretations of ‘closing the gap’ are used to open up a discussion of, and illustrate, the process whereby a narrow interpretation of ‘science’ and neglect of systems thinking result in the generation of huge amounts of dangerous and misleading misinformation and thence the generation of draconian and destructive policies. The paper opens by returning to an unfinished debate arising out of a summary of the unanticipated and counterintuitive effects of interventions designed to close the ‘attainment’ gap between more and less advantaged pupils. This is used to illustrate the importance of studying the unintended as well as intended outcomes of interventions and the importance of considering whether those outcomes are desirable. More of the problems facing those who seek to contribute to evidence-based policy are then illustrated via a discussion of an ‘illuminative’ evaluation of competency-oriented, project-based, education carried out in environments around primary schools. The result is to highlight the need for comprehensive evaluation of educational projects and policies. ‘Comprehensive evaluation’ implies the evaluation of all short and long term, personal and social, desired and desirable, and undesired and undesirable effects of the programmes and policies under investigation. When this criterion is applied, it emerges that most of the published evaluations fall well short of the mark. Indeed, most of the conclusions that are drawn are seriously misleading. As a result, they contribute to the formulation and legitimisation of policies involving alarming levels of authoritarian state intervention in peoples’ lives. The generation of such misleading information is much more widespread and serious than that exposed by the ‘replication crisis’. It is argued that at the heart of this lies the pervasive deployment of reductionist science. Other serious deficits in the thinking and methodology of psychologists and educational researchers are then discussed. It is vital for psychologists to do what they can to rectify the situation. The paper concludes with an extensive discussion of ways in which the British Psychological Society (BPS) in general, and the Psychology of Education Section in particular, might contribute to this process.

Publisher

British Psychological Society

Reference78 articles.

1. Andersson, B-E. (2001). School is good for many, but bad for too many: Voices from students about their school situation. Stockholm: Institute of Education.

2. Risky business: Correlation and causation in longitudinal studies of skill development;Bailey;American Psychologist,2018

3. Bennett, N. (1976). Teaching styles and pupil progress. London: Open Books.

4. Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows

5. Marine renewable energy in a regulatory environment: A current synthesis;Boehlert;Oceanography,2010

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

1. Some reflections prompted by Dr Jones’ paper;Psychology of Education Review;2024

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3