IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i1p367-381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The urgent need for figures of merit in order to evaluate the performance of teaching and learning methodologies: constructive criticism from a scientific metrological discipline

Author

Listed:
  • Waldo Quiroz
  • Carla Olivares
  • Cristian Merino
  • Manuel Bravo

Abstract

An objective criterion for an a priori identification of which methodologies are more appropriate for dealing with the problem of teaching or learning science at a determined school level, in the case of education, are very lax or missed. Today it is difficult to objectively differentiate which is the best strategy for dealing with a determined teaching/learning problem. Objectivity can be achieved through modern logic taken from the formal sciences, such as statistics. In the case of metrological discipline such analytical chemistry, where as in education, there is a continuous development of new methodologies and the performance are always evaluated through which analytical chemist call “figures of merit”. In this article, we establish a guide for future research in education to develop objective parameters (figures of merit) to evaluate and compare different teaching and learning strategies following the example of other disciplines such as analytical chemistry. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Waldo Quiroz & Carla Olivares & Cristian Merino & Manuel Bravo, 2013. "The urgent need for figures of merit in order to evaluate the performance of teaching and learning methodologies: constructive criticism from a scientific metrological discipline," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 367-381, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:1:p:367-381
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9523-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-011-9523-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-011-9523-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:1:p:367-381. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.