Yrkesfaglig vurderingspolicy
Gjenstridige problemer og motstridende forventninger
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/sjvd.4548Emneord (Nøkkelord):
Yrkesfaglærere, vurdering, utdanningspolitikk, wicked problemsSammendrag
Vurdering i yrkesfag er viet forholdsvis lite plass i forskning. Yrkesfaglærere i videregående opplæring skal kvalifisere kompetente fagarbeidere for fremtiden, utdanne demokratiske samfunnsborgere og støtte unge menneskers faglige, sosiale og personlige utvikling. Der er imidlertid utfordrende å tyde hvordan policymakere mener yrkesfaglærere skal håndtere dette komplekse oppdraget. Denne studien bruker tematisk analyse (Clarke & Braun, 2017) for å undersøke hvordan forventninger til yrkesfaglærere i videregående opplæring fremstilles i fem norske utdanningspolitiske dokumenter. For å forstå de dilemmaene som preger yrkesfaglig vurderingspolicy, trekker vi på to kunnskapsgrunnlag: a) forskning på læreres vurderingskompetanse og b) begrepet «wicked problems» (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Studien spør: Hvordan rammer nasjonale retningslinjer forventningene til yrkesfaglæreres vurderinger? Vi identifiserer fem politiske innramminger som fremstiller ulike, og tidvis motstridende forventninger til yrkesfaglæreres vurderer-oppdrag. Policymakere forventer at yrkesfaglærere kan 1) forhandle mellom juridiske krav, 2) utdanne unge mennesker til sosial deltakelse, 3) bruke vurdering for å støtte læring og motivasjon, 4) kvalifisere en arbeidsstyrke for fremtiden, og 5) bli profesjonelle lærere. Vi diskuterer hvordan motstridende forventninger til yrkesfaglærers vurderer-oppdrag fremstilles i policy og undersøker hvilke grep policymakere tyr til for å fremstille slike komplekse, sosiale og økonomiske utfordringer som håndterbare. Videre peker vi på hvilke implikasjoner slike grep kan ha for relevans, kvalitet og validitet i vurdering i yrkesfag.
Nedlastinger
Referanser
AIR UK, & National Centre for Social Research. (2008). The involvement of business in edu-cation: A rapid evidence assessment of the measurable impacts. Department for Chil-dren, Schools and Families. https://www.educationandemployers.org/research/the-involvement-of-business-in-education-a-rapid-evidence-assessment-of-the-measurable-impacts-2008-2/
Anderson, K. T., & Holloway, J. (2020). Discourse analysis as theory, method, and episte-mology in studies of education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 35(2), 188–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1552992
Antikainen, A. (2006). In Search of the Nordic Model in Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743258
Antikainen, A. (2016). The Nordic Model of Higher Education. In J. Cote & A. Furlong (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Sociology of Higher Education. Routledge.
Aspøy, T. M., Skinnarland, S., & Tønder, A. H. (2017). Yrkesfaglærerens kompetanse [ VET teacher competence], Fafo-Rapport No. 11. https://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2017/20619.pdf
Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box – Raising Standards through Class-room Assessment. School of Education, King’s College.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021a). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflex-ive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021b). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Re-search in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299968
Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. R. (2003). Secondary Career and Technical Educa-tion and Comprehensive School Reform: Implications for Research and Practice. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 231–272. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002231
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Clarke, V., Burns, M., & Burgoyne, C. (2008). ‘Who would take whose name?’ Accounts of naming practices in same-sex relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.936
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problem. Wiley.
Coombs, A., DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Chalas, A. (2018). Changing approaches to classroom assessment: An empirical study across teacher career stages. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.010
DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing Teachers for the Age of Accountability: Toward a Framework for Assessment Education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5–6), 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.730347
DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., MacGregor, S., & Rasooli, A. (2019). Toward a Differential and Situated View of Assessment Literacy: Studying Teachers’ Responses to Classroom Assessment Scenarios. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00094
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free Press.
Edwards, R., & Miller, K. (2008). Academic drift in vocational qualifications? Explorations through the lens of literacy. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 60(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820802042354
Falk, I. (1994). The making of policy: Media discourse conversations. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 15(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630940150201
Farnsworth, V., & Higham, J. (2012). Teachers who teach their practice: The modulation of hybridised professional teacher identities in work-related educational programmes in Canada. Journal of Education and Work, 25(4), 473–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.708726
Finlay, I., Spours, K., Steer, R., Coffield, F., Gregson, M., & Hodgson, A. (2007). ‘The heart of what we do’: Policies on teaching, learning and assessment in the learning and skills sector. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 59(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820701342442
Forskrift om rammeplan for yrkesfaglærerutdanning. (2013). Forskrift om rammeplan for yrkesfaglærerutdanning for trinn 8–13 [Regulation on The Framework Plan for Voca-tional and training teacher education for 9-13 grade]. (FOR-2013-03-18-291). Lovda-ta. https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2013-03-18-291?q=Yrkesfaglærerutdanning
Forskrift til opplæringslova. (2009). Kapittel 3. Individuell vurdering i grunnskolen og i vi-daregåande opplæring [Chapter 3. Individual assessment in primary school and in upper secondary education]. (LOV-1998-07-17-61). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2006-06-23-724/KAPITTEL_3
Gardner, J., Harlen, W., Hayward, G., & Stobart, G. (2010). Developing teacher assessment. Open University Press.
Garrick, B. (2011). The crisis discourse of a wicked policy problem: Vocational skills train-ing in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0033-9
Gills, S., & Bateman, A. (1999). Assessing in VET: Issues of Reliability and Validity. Review of Research. NCVER.
Grollmann, P. (2008). The Quality of Vocational Teachers: Teacher Education, Institutional Roles and Professional Reality. European Educational Research Journal, 7(4), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2008.7.4.535
Guthrie, H., & Every, P. (2013). VET teacher, trainer and assessor capabilities, qualifications and de velopment: Issues and options. National Skills Standards Council. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/345486
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achieve-ment. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
Hilt, L. T., Riese, H., & Søreide, G. E. (2019). Narrow identity resources for future students: The 21st century skills movement encounters the Norwegian education policy context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1502356
Hopfenbeck, T. N., Tolo, A., Florez, T., & El Masri, Y. (2013). Balancing Trust and Ac-countability? The Assessment for Learning programme in Norway. [Paper]. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Norwegian%20GCES%20case%20study%20OECD.pdf
Hutchinson, C., & Hayward, L. (2005). The journey so far: Assessment for learning in Scot-land. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500136184
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2015). Yrkesfaglærerløftet. Strategi for fremtidens fagarbeidere. [VET teacher knowledge promotion initiative. Strategy for further vocational workers]. Plan/strategi. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/18b2675273024ad3aeae27ecc4159edc/kd_yrkesfaglarerloftet_web_01.10.pdf
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2017). Verdier og prinsipper for grunnopplæringen [The Quality Framework]. Fastsatt som forskrift ved kongelig resolusjon. Læreplanverket for Kunn-skapsløftet 2020. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/37f2f7e1850046a0a3f676fd45851384/overordnet-del---verdier-og-prinsipper-for-grunnopplaringen.pdf
Köpsén, S. (2014). How vocational teachers describe their vocational teacher identity. Jour-nal of Vocational Education & Training, 66(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2014.89455
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Har-vard University Press.
Lewkowicz, D. J. (2001). The Concept of Ecological Validity: What Are Its Limitations and Is It Bad to Be Invalid? Infancy, 2(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0204_03
Mann, A., Dawkins, J., & CfBT Education Trust (Great Britain). (2014). Employer Engage-ment in Education: Literature Review. https://www.educationandemployers.org/research/employer-engagement-in-education-literature-review-janaury-2014/
NOU 2018:15. (2018). Kvalifisert, forberedt og motivert—Et kunnskapsgrunnlag om struktur og innhold i videregående opplæring [Qualified, prepared and motivated—A knowledge base on structure and content in upper secondary education], Oslo: Kunnskapsdeparte-mentet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2018-15/id2621801/sec8
Newton, P. E., & Baird, J.-A. (2016). The great validity debate. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1172871
Nusche, D., Earl, L., Maxwell, W., & Shewbridge, C. (2011). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Norway 2011. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264117006-en
OECD (Ed). (2008). Teaching and Learning International survey (TALIS).
OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/44978960.pd
OECD (Ed.). (2021). Teachers and leaders in vocational education and training. OECD Pub-lishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-and-leaders-in-vocational-education-and-training_59d4fbb1-en
Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processs of sicial constuc-tion. Sage.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday & Co.
Popham, W. J. (2017). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (Eighth edition). Pearson Education.
Rasmussen, C. (2016). Improving the quality, capability and status of the VET teacher work-force. International Specialized Skills Institute. https://www.issinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Rasmussen-Final-LowRes.pdf
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Roberts, N. C. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Interna-tional Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.
Robson, J., Bailey, B., & Larkin, S. (2004). Adding value: Investigating the discourse of pro-fessionalism adopted by vocational teachers in further education colleges. Journal of Education and Work, 17(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080410001677392
Ryle, G. (1963). The Concept of Mind. Penguin.
Sarastuen, N. K. (2020). From vocational worker to vocational teacher: A study of identity transition and loss. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 72(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2019.1607533
Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. Yale University press.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture. Educational Re-searcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
Smeby, J.-C., & Sutphen, M. (2015). From vocational to professional education: Educating for social welfare. Routledge.
Statistics Norway. (2019). Videregående opplæring og annen videregående utdanning [Up-per secondary education and other upper secondary training]. https://www.ssb.no/vgu/
Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3). http://search.proquest.com/docview/218532914?pq-origsite=gscholar
Taylor, S. (1997). Critical Policy Analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Dis-course: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180102
Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic Model in Education: Educa-tion as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educa-tional Research, 50(3), 245–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743274
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic Analysis. In C. Willig & W. S. Rogers, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17–36. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555.n2
Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2013.830079
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2014). Grunnlagsdokument - Videreføring av satsningen Vurdering for læring 2014-2017 [Foundation document - Continuing the initiative Assessment for learning 2014-2017]. Grunnlagsdokument. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/vurdering/vfl/andre-dokumenter/felles/grunnlagsdokument-2014-2017.pdf
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2018). Førsteinntak til videregående opplæring 2018-19 [First ad-mission to upper secondary education 2018-19]. https://www.udir.no/inntakstall
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptual-ization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Yeatman, A. (1990). Reconstructing public bureaucracies: The residualisation of equity and access. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 49(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.1990.tb02248.x
Nedlastinger
Publisert
Hvordan referere
Utgave
Seksjon
Lisens
Opphavsrett 2021 Julie Leonardsen, Henning Fjørtoft
Dette verket er lisensiert under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Forfattere som publiserer i SJVD, godtar følgende vilkår:
- Forfatteren(e) beholder opphavsrett og gir journalen rett til første utgivelse av arbeidet som samtidig er lisensiert under en Creative Commons Attribution License som tillater andre å dele arbeidet når forfatterskap og første utgivelse i SJVD anerkjennes.
- Forfatteren(e) kan inngå separate, ekstra kontraktsmessige ordninger for ikke-eksklusiv distribusjon av tidsskriftets publiserte versjon av arbeidet (for eksempel sende det til et institusjonelt arkiv eller publisere det i en bok) med en bekreftelse på førsteutgivelsen i SJVD.
- Forfatteren(e) har anledning til og oppfordres til å legge ut sitt arbeid på Internett (f.eks. i institusjonelle arkiv og eller på egen hjemmeside) før og under innleveringsprosessen, da det kan føre til nyttige meningsutvekslinger, samt raskere og økt sitering til det publiserte arbeidet.