Towards Valuing Equally the Outcomes of Alternative Learning Systems

Towards Valuing Equally the Outcomes of Alternative Learning Systems:

Does an Equivalent Relation Among Alternative Learning Systems Exist?

Introduction

The meaning of alternative learning has enriched by the contributions of its diverse forms emerged in different contexts. Within school contexts, terms such as open learning, open school, open education, continuation learning, equivalent program, magnetic learning, e-learning and u-learning tend to be used in parallel with formal learning whereas beyond school contexts, other ones, namely, distance learning, life-long learning, non-formal learning are likely to be utilized along with informal learning.  At the same time, the most alternative learning is challenged by an officially-recognition needs and demands. As a consequence, the challenges turn to questions of how alternative learning and its outcomes are valued equally and whether any equivalence relation exists among alternative learning systems.

In response to the questions raised above, it is argued that alternative learning systems in public education should be equally valued as long as any equivalent relation exists among them. By the same token, it is reasonably proposed that learners’ expectations can function as an equivalent relation among alternative learning systems. Hence, all possible alternative learning systems might be equally valued in terms of the quality of learner’s expectations regardless of what learning systems he or she is engaged in. It is a thesis that will be detailed in this paper.

In seeking premises for the thesis exposed above, this paper will respond to the following questions:

Why is alternative learning demanded?

What characterises alternative learning?

Alternative learning system and its diversity

The challenges of alternative learning system to educational policy

Towards determining an equivalent relation among alternative learning systems

Why is alternative learning demanded?

The demands of alternative learning might be determined by at least twofold dissatisfactions in traditional school’s behaviour. One is that traditional schooling disregards learners’ individuality whilst focusing on the uniformity of public education whereas another one is that the schools are conservative to adjust to changes and innovations caused by the prosperity of science and technology.

As far as the first demand is concerned, it can be argued that by prioritizing the learners’ individualities such as special individual needs, different learning styles and differences of opportunities and capabilities, this demand can be advocated by fundamental ideas and principles such human right, the principle of equal opportunity and the principle of equal distribution. Referring to Young (2002, cited in Langel & Sletten) it is emphasized that civil right movement should be identified as one of modern underpinnings of alternative learning. Moreover, it can be added that: 

‘Traditional schools were ‘cold’, dehumanizing, irrelevant institutions, largely indifferent to the humanity and the ‘personhood’ of those within them (Raywid 1981, cited in Langel & Sletten).

Thus, it can be sensed out that the demands to respect learners’ individualities might lead to generate alternative learning, namely, distance learning, open learning, non-formal learning, in-formal learning.

With regards to the second dissatisfaction related to school conservative behaviour, Carnoy (2000, cited in Mifsud) contented that the schools were often too conservative to take on technological challenges while information and technology have been part in daily life, work, leisure and family. What is more, Rochelle, J.M et al., (200O cited in Mifsud) remarked that schools were isolated units, and however, computer technology could provide students with tools whereby breaking the school artificial isolations. In addition, the study of secondary schools and upper secondary in Norway that was intended to reveal students experiences in what goes on within classroom, indicated that school classrooms were boredom and regarded as meaningless (Grepperud (ed) 2000, cited in Mifsud).  Hence, it might be sensitized out that the traditional schools were slow to reflect scientific and technological changes. In turn, it leads to bring up alternative learning such as e-learning, u-learning.

To sum up, it can be notable that alternative learning is emanated from the twofold dissatisfactions in traditional school behaviour. One is that traditional learning tends to dismiss learners’ individuality whilst emphasizing the uniformity of public education whereas the second one is caused by schools’ conservative traits to reflect the progressive ideas of science and technology into its practice.

What characterises alternative learning?

A term, alternative learning has been used within and beyond schools. Within school context, it is bounded up with terms such as alternative school, alternative programme (Langel & Sletten 2002), alternative education (Nagata 2004) and alternative education program (Tobin & Spraque1999) whereas beyond school, it is combined with other terms including distance learning (Christopher 1989), open learning (Lewis, R 1986), e-learning (Waterhouse 2005), e-education (Ghaoui 2004), online learning (Shank 2007) and u-learning (Ogata & Yano 2003), non-formal and in-formal learning (Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004). Thus, the feature of alternative learning might not simply differed from that of the rest of the associated terms. In fact, it should be recognized in the context wherein it is bound up with associated terms.

As far as the usage of alternative learning within school is concerned, it can be ascertained that it was traditionally characterised by that of alternative school that were featured by  parent, student, teacher choice; autonomy in learning and pace; non-competitive evaluation; and child-centered approach (Langel & Sletten 2002, p.4). In fact, the existence of open schooling influenced tremendously the creation of public alternatives at all level of education, involving the following: school without walls, school within school, multicultural school, continuing school, learning centres, fundamental schools and magnet schools.

Referring to Young (1990, cited in Langel & Sletten), it was known that schools without walls  emphasized community-based learning wherein individuals within the community were prioritized to teach students while schools within a school aims to establish  large high schools in smaller communities whereby individual groups were empowered to meet educational needs and interests of students. Besides, multicultural schools was set up to integrate culture and ethnicity into the curriculum whereas continuation schools was designated as an option for the learners who were failed in regular education system because of incidents such as dropout, pregnancy and failing grades. What is more, learning centres was designed to meet particular student needs by special resources such vocational education while fundamental schools favoured back to basic approaches. Moreover, the magnet schools were responded to the needs for racial integration whereby curriculum with special themes to attract the diverse students of students were offered.

Taking into account the attributes of the diverse alternatives within school context, Langel & Sletten (2002, p.6) presented that the characteristics of alternative schools are generally described as follows: maintaining a small size; emphasizing one-one interaction between teachers and students; creating a supportive environment; allowing opportunities for student success relevant to the students’ future; allowing flexibilities in structure and emphasis on student- decision making. Thus, it is sensitized out that alternative learning within school context are likely to be more characterised by taking into account learners’ individuality such as individual differences, particular needs, interests, learners’ freedom and rights in a broad sense.

With regards to alternative learning beyond traditional schools, its characteristics might be bound up with challenges to changes along with innovations. Referentially speaking, it is contented that two lasting consistencies have characterised alternative learning from the start:

‘One is that they have been designed to respond to a group that appears not to be optimally served by regular program. The second is that they have represented varying degrees of departure from standard school organization, programs and environments (Raywid 1994, cited in Langel & Sletten)

Moreover, anytime, anywhere learning often labelled as ubiquitous learning (u-learning) or mobile learning that might embrace various alternative learning, namely distance learning, open-learning and e-learning,  present some features that differentiate the alternatives from traditional learning As a matter of fact, the nature of ubiquitous learning might bear the attributes including the following:

‘Permanency: Learners never lose their work unless it is purposefully deleted. In addition, all the learning processes are recorded continuously everyday.

Accessibility: Learners have access to their documents, data, or videos from anywhere. That information is provided based on their requests. Therefore, the learning involved is self-directed.

Immediacy: Wherever learners are, they can get any information immediately. Thus, learners can solve problems quickly. Otherwise, the learner can record the questions and look for the answer later.

Interactivity: Learners can interact with experts, teachers, or peers in the form of synchronies or asynchronous communication. Hence, the experts are more reachable and the knowledge becomes more available.

Situating instructional activities: The learning could be embedded in our daily life. The problems encountered as well as the knowledge required are all presented in their natural and authentic forms. This helps learners notice the features of problem situations that make particular actions relevant.

Adaptability: Learners can get the right information at the right place with the right way (Ogata & Yano 2003)’

Taken together ideas discussed above, it can be argued that since alternative learning is bound up with terms such as alternative school, alternative education, u-learning including e-learning, open-learning, distance learning, its characteristics are likely to be determined as essential parts in   attributes of the aforementioned terms. Stated differently, alternative learning might be characterised by attributes that are valuing flexibility, accessibility, adaptability, permanency, immediacy, interactivity, situational,   non-competitive evaluation; and child-centered approach and students’ differences and their particular interests, learners’ autonomy. However, further thorough examination will be needed to identify the features of alternative learning. 

Alternative learning system and its diversity

As was discussed in the preceding paragraph, alternative learning bears multiple characteristics that embody various forms. Reviewing literature, it can be seen that there have been diverse terms bearing different attributes that in turn contributes to enriching the meaning of alternative learning. In fact, the alternative forms of learning will be enumerated as follows: formal learning, non-formal learning, informal learning, distance learning, open learning, e-learning and u-learning. Since learning takes place in a certain system, it can be argued that each form of alternative learning will bring in different learning systems, namely formal learning system, non-formal education system, informal education system, open learning system, distance learning system, e-learning system, and u-learning system. 

The differences between the formal, non-formal and in-formal learning are identified in the following definitions:

‘Formal learning consists of learning that occurs within an organized and structured context (formal education, in-company training), and that is designed as learning. It may lead to a formal recognition (diploma, certificate). Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspectives.

Non-formal learning consists of learning embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, but which contain an important learning element. Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s point of view.

Informal learning is defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family, or leisure. It is often referred to as experiential learning and can to a certain degree be understood as accidental learning. It is not structured in terms of learning objectives, learning time and/or learning support. Typically, it does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional (Cedefop 2000, cited in Colardyn, D & Bjornavold, p.71)’

As was defined above, such three forms of learning are distinguished from each other by their objectives, structures thus implementing them and the degree of their formal recognitions. Nevertheless, since they refer to as learning, it is ascertained that such three forms of learning will occur in certain condition resembling a system that has a structure and functions regardless of to what extent such conditions are institutionalized. Hence, it would be reasonably generalised that there will be three learning systems, namely formal learning systems, non-formal learning systems and informal learning systems each of which is corresponded to formal, non-formal and informal learning.

Apart from formal, non-formal and informal learning systems, there might be other learning systems wherein the rest of alternative learning is embedded in society and occurred in practice. Referring to Waterhouse (2005), it is ascertained that:

‘E-learning involves improving teaching and learning using instructional strategies enhanced by technology, especially computer technology (p.3)’

As the author argues, it is mainly characterised by the attributes such as to facilitate student-centered learning, anytime-anywhere learning (u-learning) and student interaction with course content; to promote communication and collaboration; to make course administration easier; to help track students’ time on task; to reduce the cost of delivering instruction; add a world dimension to course (pp.10-15). By such different attributes, it requires to set a new learning environment equipped with advanced technologies. This environment will in turn be regarded as another learning system that might be labelled as an e-learning system. Likewise, it can be argued that open learning, distance learning and u-learning lead to set up other learning systems that might be respectively called as distance learning system, open learning system. Thus, a question aroused from the diversity of alternative learning systems is whether those systems are equally valued in terms of educational policy, particularly in output documentation or certification.

To sum up, it can be noteworthy that just as the forms of alternative learning are diverse, so are learning systems established differently. The enumeration of alternative learning system will cover formal learning system, non-formal learning system, informal learning system, e-learning system, distance learning system, open learning system, and u-learning system.  In turn, those alternative systems challenge educators and policy makers when they judge outputs resulted from such alternative learning systems. In turn, it prompts us to ask a question of whether alternative systems are equivalent to each other in terms of educational policy, especially the quality of education. Such questions will be detailed in the rest of this writing.

The challenges of alternative learning system to educational policy

In the future, learners will be tremendously advantaged by various alternative learning systems that emphasize flexibility, accessibility, adaptability, permanency, immediacy, interactivity, situational, non-competitive evaluation; and child-centered approach and students’ differences and their particular interests and learners’ autonomy. However, those will challenge educators and policy makers when they are subjected to judge the quality of the outcomes and the outputs resulting from such alternative learning systems. Accordingly, this paper will attempt to reveal any commonality that exists among the alternative learning systems.

According to Cheng & Tam (1997), the quality of education comprises the characters of the set of elements in the inputs, processes, and outputs of education system that provides relevant users with complete satisfaction services. Similarly, it is arguable that the quality of outcomes and outputs of alternative learning systems will be dependent upon its inputs, processes and outputs. As for alternative learning systems, their inputs (subjects, environment and resources) and processes (delivery technologies) are quite different from each other. For instance, u-learning systems are characterized by technologies that facilitate learning at anytime and any where.  On the contrary, formal learning is featured by service that is available at the fixed place (campus) and fixed time (scheduled timetable). However, the outputs and outcomes in alternative learning system can not be expected to be different, indeed, they ought to be common in terms of the policy of general education. It is because in terms of educational policy that is underpinned by basic principles such as the principle of equal access for opportunity, the principle of opportunity for participation and the principle of cost effectiveness (Skovsmose 1994, p.28),  every learner will be committed to reach the same expectations regardless of what learning system he or she favours. State differently, in an official sense, learners’ expectations might be regarded as one of commonalities among the alternative learning systems. This commonality would be, in turn, regarded as an important indicator to value alternative learning systems equally.

In brief, alternative learning systems are mainly differentiated from each other through learning inputs and technology or delivery of learning. However, the quality of the outputs of alternative learning might be not differently expected in terms of educational policy. Therefore, learner’s expectation will be regarded as the commonness or the sameness of the alternative learning systems. As a commonality among the alternative learning systems, it is highly likely to be considered as an indicator to value them equally.

Towards determining an equivalent relation among alternative learning systems

In the future, we will witness various alternative learning systems whereby advantaging learners differently and tremendously. At the same time, we will be challenged by the problem of valuing equally the outputs of the alternative learning systems. For instance, we will be committed to provide all learners with official certifications regardless of what learning systems she or she are engaged in. What is more, it will be needed to confirm that learners who should be engaged in different learning systems will be equally qualified and recognized. Hence, raising a question of how to ensure alternative learning systems are equivalent to value each other, is worthwhile in terms of educational policy. In turn, this question enables us to examine the existence of any equivalent relation among the alternative learning systems.

Referring to mathematics textbooks, it is known that any relation (denoted as ~) in X set that satisfies these three properties is called as an equivalent relation in X

1. x~x      (x itself should be in relation)
2. if x~y, then y~x (symmetry)

            In other words, if element A is in relation with B, then B will be in relation with A

3. if x~y and y~z, then x~z (transitive)

             In other words, if A is in relation with B and B is in relation with C, then A is in relation with C (James F. G 1962)

 The significance of an equivalent relation if it exists in a given set is that all elements are grouped into equivalent classes and any elements belonging to the same class are regarded as equivalent in terms of the equivalent relation. In this sense, a concept of an equivalent relation is often used to determine any criterion or an indicator that can function to categorize variables or constructs of interest into groups.

Keeping this idea in mind, let us try to determine some relations in all alternative learning systems so that it can satisfy the properties of an equivalent relation.  As was discussed in the preceding portion of this paper, the commonality among all alternative learning systems is regarded as learner’s expectations in terms of educational policy. It means that all alternative learning systems should be bound up with each other through learner’s expectations. In practice, the learner’s expectations are often stated and measured by standards. For instance, as for Mongolia, learners’ expectations for educational stages ranged from kindergarten to primary to upper secondary school are stated in 100 standards of education (Education standard of Mongolia 2000). Thus, alternative learning systems ought to take into account the requirement standards of education so that learners engaged in them can reach the standardized expectations.  Hence, it is sensitized out that there exists a relation named as ‘to satisfy standardized expectations of learners’ among all possible alternative learning systems. Stated differently, all alternative learning systems are likely to be bound up with the relation of standardized expectations of learners.  Now, let us examine whether this relation satisfy the properties of an equivalent relation.

Any alternative learning system itself is in the relation because it is established whereby reaching learners the standardized expectations. As far as  the second condition is concerned, it is interpreted that if any two alternative learning systems each of which can functions so that learners can reach standardized expectations are equally valued in terms of educational policy. With regards to the third condition, it was hermeneutically understood that any three alternative systems each of which is in this relation, are equally valued in terms of meeting education standards. Hence, it is hermeneutically proposed that a relation sounded as ‘to satisfy standardized expectations of learners’ can function as an equivalent relation among alternative learning systems.

In brief, all alternative learning systems should be equally valued as long as they can function so that learners engaging in such systems can reach the standardized expectations. Using this criterion as an indicator when judging them equally, policy makers will overcome many challenging issues triggered by the needs of alternative learning and its diversity, namely, issues related to  certification, documentation and alternative measurement emanated from the nature of alternative learning and its challenging need to recognize officially and allocate state budget in terms of equal valuing them.  In other words, policy makers will be benefitted from the equivalent relation determined among a set of all alternative learning systems. However, its justification is needed to examine thoroughly in further research.

Conclusion

Alternative learning often comes to light because of the new demands in response to the twofold dissatisfaction in traditional school behaviours. One is that traditional learning disregard learners’ individuality whilst emphasizing the uniformity of public education whereas other one is that schools behave too conservatively when reflecting the progressive ideas of science and technology into its practice.

Alternative learning is generally characterised by emphasizing flexibility, accessibility, adaptability, permanency, immediacy, interactivity, contextual and situational instruction,   non-competitive evaluation; and child-centered approach and students’ differences and learners’ particular interests, learners’ autonomy. Nevertheless, alternative learning emerges in many different forms such as formal learning, non-formal learning, informal learning, distance learning, open learning, e-learning and u-learning. Those diverse forms of alternative learning lead various alternative learning systems enumerated as formal learning system, non-formal learning system, informal learning system, e-learning system, distance learning system, open learning system, and u-learning system. 

Alternative learning systems are mainly differentiated from each other through learning inputs and technology or delivery of learning. However, the quality of the outputs of alternative learning might be not differently expected in terms of educational policy. Therefore, learner’s expectation will be regarded as the commonness or the sameness of the alternative learning systems.

All possible alternative learning systems should be equally valued as long as they can function so that learners engaging in such systems can reach the standardized expectations. Using this criterion as an indicator to judge alternative learning systems and its outputs’ quality, policy makers will be benefitted from it when solving many challenging issues emanated from the nature of alternative learning and its diversity, namely, the issues related to certification, documentation and alternative measurement emanated from the nature of alternative learning as well as its challenges to recognize officially and allocate state budget in terms of equal valuing them.  However, the equivalency of the alternative learning systems through the equivalent relation sounded as ‘learners expectation’ and its justification are needed to examine thoroughly in further research.

References

Cheng, Y.C. & Tam, W.M 1997, ‘Multi-models of quality in education’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol.5, no.1, pp.22-31.

Colardyn, D  & Bjornavold, J 2004, ‘Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning: policy and practices in EU member states’, European Journal of Education, vol.39, no.1, 2004.

Christopher, D 1989, The evolution of distance learning: Technology-Mediated Interactive Learning, The University of Houston, Texas, USA.

Education standard of Mongolia 2000, available in website: http://www.mecs.pmis.gov.mn

James F. G 1962, Sets, relations, and functions, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

Langel, C,M & Sletten, S, J 2002, Alternative Education: A brief History and research synthesis, prepared for Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, USA.

Lewis, R 1986, ‘What is open learning’, The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, vol. 1, no.2, 1986, pp. 5 – 10.

Mifsud, L 2002, ‘Alternative learning arenas-pedagogical challenges to mobile learning technology in education’, Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, IEEE.

Ogata & Yano 2003, quoted in website site: http://www-yano.is.tokushima-u.ac.jp/ogata/clue/

Nagata, Y 2002, ‘Alternative Education: An international perspectives’, Flinders University Institute of International Education Research Collection, no.15, Australia

Shank, P (ed.) 2007,The online learning, John Wiley&Sons, Inc, USA.

Skovsmose, O 1994, Towards philosophy of critical mathematics education, Klumer Academic Publisher, p.28.

Tobin, T & Spraque, J1999, ‘Alternative education programs for at-risk youth:Issues, Best practices, and Recommendations’, OSSCB bulletin, vol.42, no.42, 1999, Oregon school study council.

Waterhouse,S 2005, The power of elearning, Pearson Education,Inc, USA

RECONSIDERING THE QUALITY MEASUREMENT OF EDUCATION

RECONSIDERING THE QUALITY MEASUREMENT OF EDUCATION

IN THE LIGHT OF MULTICULTURALISM:

TOWARDS MEASURING STUDENTS’ CULTURE ACQUISITON

Introduction

Running an education system that broadly aims to prepare future human resources for further development of a society is a costly business.  Statistically speaking, a yearly expenditure of education sectors cross countries averages out to approximately 20 percents of the whole budget for public sector.  In turn, its costliness leads stakeholders, namely, parent and employer communities to question whether the quality of education matches to their expected outcomes and outputs. In practice, it often follows controversial critiques and contestable questionings towards schooling effectiveness and efficiency whereby advancing educational measurement both theoretically and practically. The advancement appeared in educational measurement has not, however, matched yet with such new demands advocated  by multiculturalism that students’ culture differences ought to be taken into consideration when the quality of education is measured. More specifically speaking, it can be reasonably evidenced that students have not been assessed with the same test with the same difficulties.  In fact, tests are often standardized so that they neglect students’ culture differences even though it is aware that cultural differences affect their performances.  In this term, educational measurement bears a bias against students’ cultures when measuring their development.  As a consequence, educators and scholars are often challenged to eliminate the degree of bias in educational measurement as well as to increase the extent of the culture sensitiveness of the quality judgment of education.

In response to aforementioned challenges, it is evidently claimed here that the degree of the bias in educational measurement might be eliminated in case that students’ culture differences are taken into account when measuring the quality of education. In seeking the premise for this  thesis expressed above,  the vitality of such questions asked that whether there is any  possibility to measure students’ culture acquisition and  to set up some cultural measurements into the quality measurement whereby increasing the degree of the culture sensitiveness of the quality measurement of education is recognized. Accordingly, it is also sensitized to ensure whether the nature of the quality of education characterizes cultural aspects and how educational measurement is biased against students’ culture differences.  

As a result of the examination of aforementioned questions with respect to the insight of multiculturalism, it is suggested that there is a potential possibility to measure students’ culture acquisition due to setting up cultural measurements into the quality standards of education that can sensitize students’ cultural differences. More importantly, it can be argued that students’ language acquisition and some norms governing their social and moral behaviors are highly likely to be identified as cultural measurements of the quality measurement which can function to make sense out of students’ culture differences and to measure their culture acquisition.   

The argumentation and suggestion towards modifying the nature of educational measurement of in terms of increasing its culture sensitiveness in the quality judgment of schooling might bear some contributions to eliminating the degree of the existing bias in student assessment and more importantly, increasing the extent to which students’ cultural differences are sensitized and, remarkably, their culture acquisition is measured in the light of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism and Its Insight on Educational Measurement

Multiculturalism is, seemingly, identified a doctrine that favors to explore and explain any social phenomenon in the intervention of culture and its power. The essence of the insight of multiculturalism is that we owe equal respect to all cultures … true judgments of value of different works would place all cultures more or less on the same footing (Bennett 1998). An underpinning behind a multiculturalistic insight is that humans are cultural being in spite of their biological commonness (Wadham et al, 2007, p. 3). In fact, cultures shape how we see and feel about world how we behave within it and range of choices we have to operate.  In addition, it is logical to argue that there are no two cultures that are equal or same if their existences are identified. Hence, respecting different cultures equally is meant that we need more to focus on differences rather than sameness. Thus, multiculturalism empowers differences more than the sameness.  Therefore, the approach based on such insight that takes into account culture and its power and emphases the idea “difference rather than sameness” might be labeled as multicultural approach whereby likely tackling humane-related issues.  

Looking at education through lens of the multicultural insight and approach, it might be pictured that education systems as social institutions that supply educational services such as teaching, learning as well as vocational training, are challenged to reconsider structure and mechanism in the light of multiculturalism. In fact, this reconsideration raises diverse issues ranged from how to teach two pupils equally, how to provide schooling environment equally, how design curriculum content that respects students’ culture differences equally, how to assess two individuals with the same test with the same difficulty and how measure the quality of education that takes into students’ culture differences and so forth.  As a case in point, it is referred that the introduction of equality to education (namely, gender equality) through legislation, educational policy implementation and equal opportunity   policies is in practice problematic” (Erskine &Wilson 1999,p. xviii). In response to the challenges, scholars brought up some key terms working in school education such as cultural content (Meyer 1994), cultural knowledge (King1994), cultural competence (Watts et al 2008) and curriculum culture (Hargreves 1982). Now, multiculturalism is here employed again to reconsider the nature of educational measurement, the quality measurement of education.  Specifically speaking, the question pushed forward education measurement from multicultural perspectives is asked as such: How to measure the quality of education so that students’ cultural differences are taken into consideration.   In turn, this question leads us to ensure how much the nature of the quality of education is cultural.

 Does the Quality of Education Hold Cultural Aspects?

The quality of education is an underlying concept that embodies comprehensive characters of educational services. Its comprehensiveness is manifested itself in diverse definitions and understandings proposed by different scholars and agencies which attempt to recognize the constituencies and dimensions of education quality. However, the interests to determine the relationship between culture and the quality of education are stably and commonly kept among the various ideas and perspectives addressing education quality. Thus, it is suggested that the quality of education holds cultural aspects

Referring to main international education bodies engaging in education sector, it is known that UNESCO always highlights the cultural aspects of the quality of education even though they change constantly their conceptions of the quality of education with respect to time temper.  In 1972,  UNESCO recommended that  the fundamental goal of social change was to eradicate inequality and to establish the equitable democracy whereby prioritizing the notions such as lifelong learning and relevance as well as respecting the social and cultural context of learners (Faure et al, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005).  Then, after two decades, this organization again reconsidered the nature of the quality of education in the light of four pillars of learning, known as learning to know, learning to do, learning to live and learning to be (Delors, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). In 2003, UNESCO also highlighted that accessibility to quality education was identified as a human right and support a human right-approach to all educational activities whereby acknowledging prior knowledge at learner’s level and recommending the best possible impacts for learning for all at system’s level (Pigozzi, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). At the same time, UNICEF emphasizes equity and relevance to school education whereby underpinning the equity as an essential part in the embodiment of the quality of education (Wilson, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005)

As a whole, the quality of education centers round such culturally-contextually-understood–notions such as lifelong learning, relevance, accessibility and respectfulness of child rights and equity in terms of the sights of the international education bodies. Therefore, the nature of the quality of education might embrace cultural aspects. In turn, it brings to us a challenging question: To what extent does educational measurement take into account cultural aspects of the quality of education.  The question will be examined in the next part of this piece of writing.

Is Educational measurement biased against students’ cultures?

The functionality of education has been debatable from time to time. However, no matter how it functions, its quality measurement is importantly considered in terms of ensuring its relevancy and validity.  Having focused on the attributes of the nature of the quality of education that was to some extent discussed in the previous part, we can confidently bring in challenging questions to the field of educational measurement that might be formulated as such:  To what extent does educational measurement take into cultural aspects of the quality of education.  More specifically, are students tested with the same test with the same difficulties or do educational measurement has bias against students’ culture differences?  Since such sort of the questions often bears complexity and complicatedness, they are not easily answered.  Nevertheless, the point to advocate that educational measurement has a bias against students’ culture differences tends to be strongly arguable. The thesis bearing such point will be detailed in the rest of this piece of writing. 

Speaking about educational measurement, it is theoretically noted that the quality of education ought to be culturally and contextually determined and measured (Tsogdov 2008). However, practically, it is not done in such expected way. In other words, the quality measurement of education tends to neglect students’ culture differences whereby causing a bias against students’ culture differences. Such an educational bias is often appeared in most standardized tests in practice. Take, for example, the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) conducted by The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Assessment that has a bias against French students.

Recognizing the difficulties to compare students’ achievement level across the countries when taking into consideration cultural affects on students’ performance results, Hanna (1993) examined the cross-cultural equivalence of the original English test and its French translation administered to the Franco-Ontarian population and the affection of the difference of the language level  to the level of item difficult itself as well.  Using diverse techniques of transformed item difficulties, the author revealed that the items were more difficult for French students.  In other words, the items were biased against French students. The reasons behind this bias as author pointed out once, is due to a difference in ability or curriculum between two groups. Respecting to author’s point, it can be also argued that the causes behind the bias are more directly explained by cultural differences of French students. Likewise, most international and national tests likely administered under standardized conditions, namely PISA and TIMSS as well as the national exams whereby producing official records and results to meet specifications of test administers, are highly likely to neglect cultural aspects of students’ academic performance.  Thus, it is evident that the quality measurement of education has a bias against their culture differences.

As a whole, the advancement of the educational measurement has not reached yet the level at which students’ culture differences are taken into account when measuring the quality of education. In fact, most educational tools, namely, standardized tests have a bias against students’ culture differences. Consequently, it is reasonably noted that students who are culturally different have less chance to be tested with the same with the same difficulty.  Therefore, we, educators, are challenged to eliminate the degree of the bias in educational measurement.  This challenge compels us to seek the possibilities and ways to measure students’ culture acquisition that might be differently constructed within their cultural contexts.

 The Needs to Measure Students’ Culture Acquisition and Its Possibility

The quality of education embodies cultural aspects, yet the quality measurement of education neglects them. Instead, it is often biased against students’ cultural differences. This is a real, but controversial circumstance wherein students might be disadvantaged by the biased educational measurement against their cultural differences.  In other words, students are likely subjected to be discriminated against their culture differences by current educational measurement. In this sense, the existing bias in the quality measurement of education measurement against students’ culture differences is contradictory and incompatible to the underlying principles of social justice and the ideas of key concepts such as equality, equity, equal opportunity and multiculturalism. In order to increase the degree of the compatibility of educational measurement to the key concepts and principles that center upon social justice, it is inevitably needed to seek the ways to eliminate the bias against students’ culture difference in educational measurement.

Accordingly, it is suggested that the degree of the bias in educational measurement against students’ culture differences might be considerably eliminated as long as students’ culture acquisitions are taken into account when measuring the quality of education.  In turn, this suggestion is, of course, questioned reasonably how to take students’ culture acquisition into consideration when measuring education quality and  if there are any possible ways to measure students’ culture acquisition.  The thesis towards those issues is that students’ culture acquisition might be at the least partly measured by their knowledge, skills and even attitudes of some measurable components of culture, namely, language acquisition, school normative norms.  Thus, the culture sensitiveness of the quality measurement of education will be increased in case that it takes into consideration some possible cultural measurements which can function to measure students’ culture differences and their culture acquisition.  The detailed argumentation will be given below.

Measuring students’ culture acquisition is sounded strange because it holds the diverse characteristics or attributes of the nature of culture.  As a matter of fact, there is no single definition of what culture is. No matter how it is differently envisioned, there are, however, common understandings about what components the nature of culture consists of. Referring to Wadham et al (2007, p6), it is known that the nature of culture comprises symbols and signs, languages, values and meanings, beliefs, norms rituals as well as material objects.  Among those components of culture, which is mostly likely to be measureable in terms of measuring students’ culture acquisition?   Interestingly, it is noted that most of them holds measurable attributes in some specific sense. With regard to students’ culture acquisition, a language component of culture is prioritized to consider here.  The reason why a language is sorted out to utilize as cultural measurements is that a language is a system consisted of symbols and signs whereby externalizing our inner thoughts, feelings and experiences (Wadham et al, p.10). Thus, how to reveal students’ culture acquisition through their language acquisition? 

Just as language acquisition is measured often by four major skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing, so does culture acquisition.  In other words, students’ culture acquisition are likely be revealed by four major channels, namely, listening, reading, speaking and writing culture through language. Hence, it is logically noted that the body of students’ culture acquisition comprises four major parts such as cultural listening, cultural speaking, cultural reading and cultural writing.  Taken together such points, it is said that such four major components can partially function as cultural measurement of the quality measurement of education even though succinct definitions of them are needed.  Therefore, it is sensitized that there is a potential possibility to measure students’ culture acquisition through their language acquisition

Apart from a language component of culture, it seems that norms might bear some attributes or characteristics that function together as cultural measurement to measure students’ culture acquisition.   Referring to Halliman (2005), it is known that school normative culture plays a considerable role in students’ socialization. As he pointed out, school normative culture consists of three major dimensions: academic performance, social behavior and moral behavior.  Each of them tends to be measured by norms as the author argues. Students’ academic performance might be measured the norms defined in standards, excellences as well as expectation whereas norms governing students’ social behaviors might be measured by their social participation and civil engagement such as the rules and standards governing social participation and tolerance of democracy, pluralism as well as diversity.  In addition, the norms regulating their moral behaviors are expected to be measured by moral orders of school community, namely, justice, community responsibilities and collective interests.  Thus, school normative cultural norms such their social participation, community responsibility, tolerance of diversity, democracy as well as pluralism are highly likely to be identified as cultural measurement to judge students’ culture acquisition.

As a whole, it is remarkably noted that students’ culture acquisition needs to taken into consideration when the quality of education is measured with respect to the insight of multiculturalism. Because of the complexity of the nature of culture, the task to measure students’ culture acquisition is inevitably become a challenging question so far.  Deliberating on the constituencies of the nature of culture, it can be contended that there is a potential possibility to measure students’ culture acquisition through their language acquisition along with their social and moral behaviors governed by community norms.

Conclusion

Multiculturalism that emphasizes ethnic differences and cultural diversities, is questioning us whether the quality measurement of education is sensitive to students’ culture differences and backgrounds.  In response to this question, the nature of the quality of education and the possibility to modify educational measurement in terms of increasing its culture sensitiveness were reconsidered here in the light of multiculturalism.  Accordingly, it is evidenced that the nature of the quality of education holds cultural aspects; educational measurement at current time has a bias against students’ culture differences; and what is more, there is a potential possibility to measure students’ culture acquisition through their language acquisition. As a result of analysis, it is recommended that students’ language acquisition as well as some norms governing students’ social and moral behaviors are likely to function as cultural measurements into the quality measurement or standards of education whereby measuring students’ culture acquisition. Moreover, it is reasonably suggested that setting up culture measurement into the educational measurement will increase the degree of culture sensitiveness of the quality of education.

The translation of the insight on measuring students’ culture acquisition into the practice of educational measurement will hopefully bring some benefits to educators and students in both theoretical and practical senses. However, in doing so practically, a careful justifications and clear procedures are needed to verify in further investigations.  

References

Bennett,D 1998, Multicultural states: Rethinking Differences and Identity, Claysle Ltd, Great Britain, p.32.

Erskine,S&Wilson,M (ed.)1999, Gender issues in international education: Beyond policy and practice, Falmer Press, New York.

Hargreves, D,H 1982, The challenge for the comprehensive school, Routledge (http//books.google.com.au)

King, Joyce, E 1994, The purpose of schooling for African American children: Including cultural knowledge, SUNY press,

Meyer,J,W 1999, The changing cultural content of the Nationa-State: World Society Perspective, Cornell University Press.

Halliman, T, M 2005, The normative Culture of a school and student socialization in Hedges,V& Schneider, B (ed.) The school Organization of schooling, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Hanna,G 1993, The validity of the international performance comparisons, in Niss, M Investigation into Assessment in Mathematics Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Tsogdov, L 2008, The dimensional aspects of the quality of the primary and secondary education in Mongolia (Literature review assignment), School of Education, Adelaide.

UNESCO 2005, EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris, pp.27-31.  htt://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID.

Watts, R, J, Cuellar, N,G, O’Sullivan, A,L 2008, Developing a blueprint for cultural competence education, Journal of Professional Nursing, no.24, pp.136-142.

Wadham, B, Pudsey, J, Boyd, R 2007, Culture and Education, Pearson Education Australia, Malaysia.

The Dimensional Aspects of the Quality Standardization

The Dimensional Aspects of the Quality Standardization

Of the Primary and Secondary Education in Mongolia

(Literature Review)

Introduction

Educational outcomes vary from society to society.  As for Mongolia, they are rather controversial.  Its controversy is that among some other countries, Mongolia is placed at the highest level in terms of quantitative indicators of educational performance, namely, an enrolment rate, the ratio of boys and girls in schools and a literacy rate whereas it is ranged at the lowest level in terms of qualitative indicators such as employment rate, life quality, a human development index.  As a matter of fact, the development index of Mongolia in terms of Educational for All is 0.916 whereby listing at the 67th place out of 127 countries (EFA report 2007). Moreover, a recent study indicates that there is no big difference between the poor peoples and the non-poor ones in terms of being satisfied with their life. In fact, a number of people bearing higher degrees in education constitute more 10 percent of the whole poor (National Statistics Office 2002).  Those figures proved that the quality of education is unsatisfactory and irrelevant to our society wherein we have practised the values of democracy and free economic market for the last two decades. The evidenced irrelevancy and dissatisfaction in schooling prompted stakeholders to extend public concerns about the poor quality of education to Mongolian authorities.

Recognized the social pressures and needs to advance schooling services, the government of Mongolia highlighted that our social progresses directly relied upon human capacities that were, in turn, contingent upon the quality of education (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2007). It also followed the government commitments to take comprehensive measures to improve education quality whereby challenging our educationalists  in order to set up an appropriate policy that can function as a tool to improve the educational quality from primary schools to universities. As a result of the nation-wide discussions, a conception underlying the quality standardization in educational services whereby assuring school excellences was produced and approved (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2006). However, it brought a big challenge that led us to penetrate into the nature of the quality of education and to examine its dimensionality.

The examination of the dimensionality of the nature of education quality with respect to the Mongolian contextual reality is becoming a challenging problem in order to standardize school education. In order to tackle this problem within our context, it is practically needed to examine the constituencies and dimensions of education quality.  In accordance with the need-based specific purpose, this literature review will be conducted with twofold focuses such as: (1) what constitutes the quality of education and (2) how to dimensionate it.  

This review is beneficiary for the Mongolian educationalists as well as policy-makers in terms of advancing their understandings about standardizing the quality of school education with regard to dimensional aspects in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, it is worthwhile in terms of bringing forth the research based-several questions directly addressed to set up the standards for the quality of school education in Mongolia. 

What Constitutes The Quality Of Education?

The quality of education is an underlying concept that embodies comprehensive characters of educational services. Its comprehensiveness is manifested itself in diverse definitions and understandings proposed by different scholars and agencies, each of which aims, to some extent, to recognize the constituencies of education quality.  Taken together the various ideas and perspectives about education quality appeared in recent papers, it is likely to propose that the quality of education embraces multiple constituencies bearing cultural contexts.

According to Cheng & Tam (1997), the quality of education comprises the characters of the set of elements in the inputs, process and outputs of education system that provide relevant users with complete satisfaction services.  As a matter of fact, the authors reached this definition by synthesizing general conceptions of quality in management  such as education quality as excellence (Peter & Waterman, cited in Chen &Tam 1997), value (Feigenbaum, cited in Chen &Tam 1997), fitness for use (Juran & Gryna, cited in Chen &Tam 1997), conformance to specifications (Gilmore, cited in Chen &Tam 1997) conformance to requirement (Crosb, cited in Chen &Tam 1997) defect avoidance (Crosby, cited in Chen &Tam 1997) meeting and/or exceeding consumers expectations (Parasuranman et al., cited in Chen &Tam 1997). In terms of this definition, the quality of school education, to large extent, comprises three broad constituencies, namely, input, process and output ones.  Therefore, this paper is worthwhile in terms of suggesting the broad extents to which the quality of education is mostly likely to be defined, measured and standardized.  However, it is again arguable what the constituencies of input, process and output in school education are in terms of assuring quality.

Apart from the broad definition of education quality, the authors also put forward seven models of education quality, namely, a goal-specification model, a resource input model, a process model, a satisfaction model, a legitimacy model, an absence of problem model and an organizational learning model. In fact, those are produced through the interpretations of the models of organizational effectiveness and school effectiveness into educational service (Cameron & Whetten and Cheng, cited in Chen &Tam 1997).  Each model of education quality brings underlying characters whereby implicitly presenting its some constituent parts. For instance, a goal-specification model is likely to bring ‘achievement conformity with given goals’ as a constituent part in education quality.  Likewise, the rest of the models might suggest some specific particularities as education quality constituencies.  Thus, a concept, education quality tends to embrace many constituent parts in terms of defining, measuring and assuring quality.  

Referring to international education bodies such as UNESCO and UNICEF, their understandings of the quality of education has been more evolved rather than fixed or unchanged. In 1972, UNESCO recommended that  the fundamental goal of social change was to eradicate inequality and to establish the equitable democracy whereby prioritizing the notions such as lifelong learning and relevance as well as respecting the social and cultural context of learners (Faure et al, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005).   Then, after two decades, this organization again reconsidered the nature of the quality of education in the light of four pillars of learning, known as learning to know, learning to do, learning to live and learning to be. Just as education is conceptualized in the holistic view of learning so is education quality (Delors, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). In this conceptualization, education quality ought to center on learning and its roles into their life in terms of generating skills to cogitate, create, co-operate and survive which tie all together in with cultural background.  In 2003, UNESCO also highlighted that accessibility to quality education was identified as a human right and support a human right-approach to all educational activities whereby acknowledging prior knowledge at learner’s level and recommending the best possible impacts for learning for all at system’s level (Pigozzi, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005).

 Taken together afore-mentioned definitions recommended by UNESCO, it is highly likely to noted that notions such as lifelong learning, relevance, accessibility and respectfulness to learner’s right, might be weighted up in determining the constituent parts of education quality. Since the quality of education centers round such culturally-understood–notions, its constituencies might be culturally and contextually determined.

At the same time, UNICEF stresses the child-centered approach founded upon child rights to the quality of education that emphasizes equity and relevance to school education. In fact, this approach underpins the enforcement of stakeholders to governments whether they should take measures for progressive realization of the right to education and for aspects of its quality (Wilson, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). In turn, it implies that equity aspects underpinned by child rights is mostly likely to take part in the embodiment of the quality of education.

As a whole, it is remarkably noted that the quality of education centers round such culturally-contextually-understood–notions such as lifelong learning, relevance, accessibility and respectfulness of child rights and equity in terms of the sights of the international education bodies and the existing literature. Therefore, it might embrace multiple constituencies that are likely to be culturally and contextually determined. However, it is arguable whether all constituencies of education quality are regarded as dimensions in educational measurement. This question directly related to the dimensionality of the quality of education will be considered in the next part of this piece of writing.

How To Dimensionate  The  Quality Of Education?

The measurement of the quality of education emphasizes an importance of determining its dimensions. The reason why it plays crucial roles in the quality measurement of education is that any efforts to evaluate the quality of education in way of taking into account its all constituent parts is theoretically possible, yet  practically, almost impossible because of its complexity and complicatedness. Thus, it is needed to differentiate such characters or constituencies from the nature of education quality that form dimensions to measure education quality.  In turn, it is again questioned how to dimensionalize the quality of education and how many dimensions it has and which of them can embody the base of the dimensions by which the nature of the quality are measured.  Examining those questions in the recent literature, it has been known that there is not single definition and understanding regarding the dimensions of education quality. Instead, there are diverse propositions that might bring some contributions towards recognizing the dimensionality of education quality. Therefore, it is mostly likely to put forward that further research is importantly needed to verify the dimensionality of the quality of education and determine the base of its dimensions.

Dealing with the nature of education quality in the light of human right-based approach wherein human right-based education is regarded as a conceptual basis of quality education, Pigozzi (2004) put forward that the quality of education has 10 dimensions. According his proposition, five out of them represent the dimensions at learners’ level whereas the rest of them indicate the dimensions at system’s level. The learners five dimensions comprise teachers, content, methodologies, curricula and examination systems while the system’s ones consist of managerial structure, policy, legislation framework, resource and measurement system (Pigozzi 2004, p.6). Respecting to his determination of education quality dimensions, education standards are likely to bear such sort of dimensions. 

As regards its validation, Pigozzi’s proposition is worthwhile in terms of giving a broad orientation to set up standards for education quality. However, the argumentation given for why education quality bears 10 dimensions was not succinctly and precisely reasoned.  At this critical point, it can not be regarded as a paper that brought theoretical contributions to tackle the dimensionality-related problems of education quality such as (1) whether education quality is dimensionalised and (2) what the base dimensions of education quality are.

Founded upon the philosophy of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF proposes that the quality of education contains 5 dimensions, namely, learners, environments, content, processes and outcomes (UNICEF 2000, cited in EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005).  Following on those dimensions, the quality of education is likely to be standardized with the five major categories of criteria or indicators.  However, it might be again asked how such 5 dimensions are broken down into such measurable indicators and criteria.

Synthesizing the ideas of general conceptions of quality in management into education, Cheng & Tam (1997.p.23) noted that the quality of education was multi-dimensional. In fact, this proposition was not clearly reasoned in his paper. Only one considerable argument is that since the quality of education contains the diverse characters of the set of the elements of input, process and output in education in terms of organization management, it might embrace multi-dimensions (Cheng & Tam, 1997). Indeed, such sort of the argumentations of the multi-dimensionality in education quality seem to be not strong because it is not founded upon the clear underpinnings that takes into the differences between its constituencies and dimensions. Thus, further clarification is needed to examine the linkage between multi-constituencies and multi-dimensions in education quality

Summary

The nature of the quality of education has still been debatable in terms of clarifying its constituencies and dimensions.  In accordance with recent papers, the quality of education tends to embody the multiple constituencies that are highly likely to be recognized culturally and contextually rather than internationally and globally. In addition, no single identification that can determine the number of the dimensions of education quality has been founded yet.  Referring to the existing literature, the number indicating dimensions of the quality of education vary from 3 through 5 to 10.  Thus, it is said that the quality of education might be also multi-dimensional. However, succinct argumentations reasoning the multi-dimensionality of education quality is needed.  

Further Research Questions Posed

Based on our current awarenesses about the nature of the quality of education and its dimensionality summarized, by and large, in this literature review, it is suggested that following questions will be needed to be researched in order to facilitate the quality standardization of the primary and secondary education in Mongolia:

To what extent will Mongolian cultural and contextual aspects be considered into the quality standardization of the primary and secondary education?

How many dimensions are sufficient to measure the quality of the primary and secondary education in Mongolia? 

To what extent are cultural values taken into consideration to dimensionalise the quality of education in Mongolia?

REFERENCES

Cheng, Y.C. & Tam, W.M 1997, Multi-models of quality in education, Quality Assurance in Education, vol.5, no.1, pp.22-31.

Ministry of Education,Culture and Science 2007, EFA Report (draft), Ulaanbaatar, p.6.

Ministry of Education,Culture and Science 2007, School curriculum policy, order no.236/2007 Ulaanbaatar.

Ministry of Education, Science 2007, The Proceedings of the Teacher Forum, Ulaanbaatar, p.7.

National Statistics Office of Mongolia, the World Bank, UNDP 2004, Household Income and Expenditure, Living Standards Measurement Survey: Main Report, 2002-2003, Ulaanbaatar, p.41.

Pigozzi, M 2004, The 10 dimensions of quality in education, research paper presented at the meeting of Resource pack of curriculum development, Tokyo, UNESCO.

UNESCO 2005, EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris, pp.27-31.   htt://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID.