IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v8y2020i2p6-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying Learning: Measuring Student Outcomes in Higher Education in England

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Kandiko Howson

    (Centre for Higher Education Research and Scholarship, Imperial College London, UK)

  • Alex Buckley

    (Learning and Teaching Academy, Heriot-Watt University, UK)

Abstract

Since 2014, the government in England has undertaken a programme of work to explore the measurement of learning gain in undergraduate education. This is part of a wider neoliberal agenda to create a market in higher education, with student outcomes featuring as a key construct of value for money. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (subsequently dismantled) invested £4 million in funding 13 pilot projects to develop and test instruments and methods for measuring learning gain, with approaches largely borrowed from the US. Whilst measures with validity in specific disciplinary or institutional contexts were developed, a robust single instrument or measure has failed to emerge. The attempt to quantify learning represented by this initiative should spark debate about the rationale for quantification—whether it is for accountability, measuring performance, assuring quality or for the enhancement of teaching, learning and the student experience. It also raises profound questions about who defines the purpose of higher education; and whether it is those inside or outside of the academy who have the authority to decide the key learning outcomes of higher education. This article argues that in focusing on the largely technical aspects of the quantification of learning, government-funded attempts in England to measure learning gain have overlooked fundamental questions about the aims and values of higher education. Moreover, this search for a measure of learning gain represents the attempt to use quantification to legitimize the authority to define quality and appropriate outcomes in higher education.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Kandiko Howson & Alex Buckley, 2020. "Quantifying Learning: Measuring Student Outcomes in Higher Education in England," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 6-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:6-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2564
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martyn Polkinghorne & Gelareh Roushan & Julia Taylor, 2017. "Considering the marketing of higher education: the role of student learning gain as a potential indicator of teaching quality," Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 213-232, July.
    2. George D. Kuh & Peter T. Ewell, 2010. "The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 22(1), pages 1-20.
    3. anonymous, 2008. "Focus on Authors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1132-1136, 11-12.
    4. anonymous, 2008. "Focus on Authors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 535-540, 05-06.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julian Hamann, 2020. "Governance by Numbers: A Panopticon Reversed?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 68-71.
    2. Maarten Hillebrandt & Michael Huber, 2020. "Editorial: Quantifying Higher Education: Governing Universities and Academics by Numbers," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-5.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cintya Lanchimba & Paúl Medina, 2011. "Fecundidad en el Ecuador y su relación con el entorno social y evolutivo," Analítika, Analítika - Revista de Análisis Estadístico/Journal of Statistical Analysis, vol. 1(1), pages 31-55, Junio.
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q4h0h8h is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q4h0h8h is not listed on IDEAS
    4. François-Xavier de Vaujany & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2016. "Matters of visuality in legitimation practices: Dual iconographies in a meeting room," Post-Print hal-01767067, HAL.
    5. Anne Isabel Kraus & Owen Frazer & Lars Kirchhoff & Tatiana Kyselova & Simon J. A. Mason & Julia Palmiano Federer, 2019. "Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 331-342.
    6. Shigeru Fujita & Hermann Gartner, 2014. "A closer look at the German labor market 'miracle'," Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, issue Q4, pages 16-24.
    7. Kadriu, Arbana & Haliti, Nusret, 2018. "A Business Perspective on Internet of Things," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2018), Split, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Split, Croatia, 6-8 September 2018, pages 1-6, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    8. Patrick Messerlin, 2009. "Too early to cry wolf," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqi, Sciences Po.
    9. Yannira Chávez & Paúl Medina, 2012. "Estructura ocupacional y bono demográfico en el Ecuador," Analítika, Analítika - Revista de Análisis Estadístico/Journal of Statistical Analysis, vol. 3(1), pages 63-69, Junio.
    10. Katja Mielke & Helena Cermeño, 2021. "Mitigating Pro-Poor Housing Failures: Access Theory and the Politics of Urban Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 439-450.
    11. Kuo‐Chang Huang & Kong‐Pin Chen & Chang‐Ching Lin, 2010. "An Empirical Investigation of Settlement and Litigation—The Case of Taiwanese Labor Disputes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 786-810, December.
    12. Chiara Certomà & Mark Dyer & Antonella Passani, 2020. "The City of Digital Social Innovators," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7.
    13. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h2q4h0h8h is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Yabibal Mulualem Walle, 2010. "Tourist Flows and its Determinants in Ethiopia," Working Papers 001, Policy Studies Institute.
    15. Helen O’Sullivan & Martyn Polkinghorne & Julia Taylor, 2022. "Investigating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Undergraduate Business Education: Using Learning Gain as a Measure to Compare Two Cohorts of Marketing Students," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-14, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:6-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.