Abstract
We present an analysis of two current policy options to improve evaluation of access and participation work: independent external evaluation vs. in-house evaluation. Evaluation of access and participation work needs to be well-conducted, objective and widely disseminated, regardless of the outcome. Independent external evaluation is likely to provide objectivity and the right skills, but providing effective and timely feedback may be prohibitively expensive. Without support, in-house practitioner teams risk lack of objectivity and skills. Neither external nor in-house evaluation is likely to solve issues of publication bias; usage of open science principles could help. Working with academics and other experts internal to the institution could provide the skills to work well under the open science framework. Working as a sector to avoid duplication of effort is likely to get us further, faster.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 1002934 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Frontiers in Education |
| Volume | 8 |
| Early online date | 18 Jan 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 18 Jan 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright © 2023 Moores, Summers, Horton, Woodfield, Austen and Crockford. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.Keywords
- Education
- evaluation
- policy
- access and participation
- what works
- widening access and participation