Search results

Brad Astbury is research fellow in the Centre for Program Evaluation, Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne where he lectures within the Masters of Evaluation course. His interests lie in evaluation theory and social research methodology. Brad has conducted evaluations in a number of areas, including corrections, education, health promotion and various family and community service interventions.

(Editors)

Lawrence Ingvarson is a principal research fellow at the Australian Council for Educational Research. Prior to taking up his present part-time position, he was the research director of the Teaching and Leadership Program at ACER. He began his career as a science and mathematics teacher, teaching in West Australia, Scotland, and England before undertaking further studies at the University of London. He has held academic positions at the University of Stirling in Scotland and Monash University in Melbourne.

So I want to take you back to about 20 years ago, as a first year graduate student I was doing a research assistantship with a professor interested in math test performance and motivation. This was the period when the U.S. was equally awed by the Japanese automobile import/production cycle and the Japanese educational system. The systems were both efficient and effective. As part of that assistantship, I helped some staff from the Midwest State Board of Education (MSBE) do a modest longitudinal study. It was all very informal – MSBE and Midwest University (MU) faculty thought it would be interesting to see how the students in 1984 compared with 1974 – called the Decade Study. MU faculty also wanted to pilot some scales assessing student motivation and test anxiety.

Now nearly two decades into its existence, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) serves as an indispensable reform in American education, not only on its own merits but also in relation to other reform trends, including both standards-based, accountability-oriented developments, and the unfolding of new parental choice and privatization movements. The NBPTS is a major strategy for recognizing and developing outstanding teachers, who are needed in all schools, whether organized around standards and assessments or mobilized via competitive market pressures. Drawing on an analogy with the medical field's National Board for Medical Examiners, this paper discusses the prospects for the NBPTS in the context of American educational reform, making the argument for its centrality, while also discussing the challenges that lie ahead for the Board.

By 2006, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards had offered advanced certification to 50,000 accomplished teachers using performance-based assessments of their teaching knowledge and practice (about 2% of the US teaching force). However, the Board has had much greater impact than the initial numbers of certified teachers suggested. As the first professional effort to define accomplished teaching, it has also had an enormous influence on standard-setting for beginning teacher licensing, teacher education programs, teacher assessment, on-the-job evaluation, and professional development for teachers throughout the United States. This chapter describes some of the results of the Board's work, evaluates its impact, and discusses issues that it raises for the future of teaching and the nature of the teaching career.

Creating something entirely new, something important, something for which there is no agreed upon “right way,” set model, or solid precedence is exciting – and, at times, frustrating. Developing the Adolescence and Young Adulthood assessment for science teachers (AYA/S) of students aged 14 to 18+ for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is a case in point. This chapter describes our experiences as an Assessment Development Laboratory (ADL) and looks at some of the challenges inherent in developing a large-scale assessment that is complex, strives to be innovative, and must be closely aligned with a given set of standards. Some of the external challenges we faced included shifting and unclear expectations, the conflicting needs of multiple stakeholders and a deadline that was dramatically shortened midway through the process. Within the assessment development process itself we also needed to consider how best to involve teachers, address issues of equity and standardize the process to maximize efficiency. We share some stories to illustrate not only the challenges but also the insights gained and lessons learned during the early years if the project with the hope that they provide a useful historical perspective relevant for other large-scale assessment development projects.

This chapter considers the usefulness and validity of public inquiries as a source of data and preliminary interpretation for case study research. Using two contrasting examples – the Bristol Inquiry into excess deaths in a children’s cardiac surgery unit and the Woolf Inquiry into a breakdown of governance at the London School of Economics (LSE) – I show how academics can draw fruitfully on, and develop further analysis from, the raw datasets, published summaries and formal judgements of public inquiries.

Academic analysis of public inquiries can take two broad forms, corresponding to the two main approaches to individual case study defined by Stake: instrumental (selecting the public inquiry on the basis of pre-defined theoretical features and using the material to develop and test theoretical propositions) and intrinsic (selecting the public inquiry on the basis of the particular topic addressed and using the material to explore questions about what was going on and why).

The advantages of a public inquiry as a data source for case study research typically include a clear and uncontested focus of inquiry; the breadth and richness of the dataset collected; the exceptional level of support available for the tasks of transcribing, indexing, collating, summarising and so on; and the expert interpretations and insights of the inquiry’s chair (with which the researcher may or may not agree). A significant disadvantage is that whilst the dataset collected for a public inquiry is typically ‘rich’, it has usually been collected under far from ideal research conditions. Hence, while public inquiries provide a potentially rich resource for researchers, those who seek to use public inquiry data for research must justify their choice on both ethical and scientific grounds.