FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W223886130> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W223886130 startingPage "18" @default.
• W223886130 abstract "Understanding education as a game (metaphorically, of course) raises the question of how best to measure a game, or at least its outcomes. Rather than address this question directly now, I would like to reframe the discussion in terms of as a social scientific process. By doing so, we can better articulate the central problems posed by assessment, including ideological confounding. To do so, we must first examine the components of social scientific research (theory, method, and the question/problem) and the conceptual relationship among these three components (methodology). One of the most problematic aspects of conducting social scientific research lies in the investigator's recognition that the answers to research problems are largely determined by the precise way the research question is asked. Operationally speaking, the theoretical bases of a research endeavor, its conceptual underpinnings, guide the nature of the questions raised, and thereby narrow the range of recognizable answers. Just as the selection of the tools or methods to be employed determines which aspects, qualities, and components of phenomena the researcher perceives, the selection of a theoretical orientation highlights some kinds of explanations while obscuring many possible alternatives. For this reason, the choice of a theory -- or in this case, the metaphor of gaming -- to guides one's research efforts is an essential prerequisite to selecting the specific tool or methods of inquiry, since the theoretical or conceptual orientation of the researcher also will focus and frame the precise question to be addressed. Once a theory is posed and a question raised, the appropriate tools must be determined. The rationale that explicates and justifies the connection among the theory, the question, and the method is called the methodology. But without first articulating a theory or conceptual/metaphorical lens for raising and addressing the problem, it is impossible (if not both absurd and irrelevant) to formulate one's methodology. Professor Schwartzman's response is for us to employ the metaphor of a game to the process of education. So, how will we evaluate the success of education as a game? This is not so easy to answer, for as educational professionals we operate within three broad domains of accountability: (1) intra-disciplinary accountability to our departmental and disciplinary colleagues, (2) accountability to our colleagues in other disciplines, and significantly (3) accountability to a host of non-, para-, and extra-professional populations including our students, the local community, and professional oversight agencies. For most academe, the extrinsic forces, both locally and nationally, are compelling us to engage in comprehensive, systematic and in reporting the results understandably and convincingly. This is a source of faculty discomfort. Joseph C. Burke of SUNY cites educators' fears that academic freedom might decline in the face of external drives for accountability (Chen & Seidel, 1992, p. 5). While these external forces are surely political, the economic basis of the assessment movement is clear. And it is in economic terms that Burke continues his explanation of the consequences of these political and economic factors for higher education: Faculty should remember that this autonomy is conferred only because it allows colleges and universities the freedom to give society and the services it needs instead of catering to societal wants. Autonomy is always purchased at the price of accountability ... Only enterprises that are totally self-sufficient and self-serving can remain completely free and autonomous. Colleges and universities are too essential and expensive to the state and society to be left to their own devices. …" @default.
• W223886130 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W223886130 creator A5086121166 @default.
• W223886130 date "1997-09-22" @default.
• W223886130 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W223886130 title "Education and Assessment: How Do We Measure a Game?" @default.
• W223886130 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W223886130 type Work @default.
• W223886130 sameAs 223886130 @default.
• W223886130 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W223886130 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W223886130 hasAuthorship W223886130A5086121166 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C126042441 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C16345878 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C187029079 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C192209626 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C76155785 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W223886130 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C111472728 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C111919701 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C120665830 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C121332964 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C126042441 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C138885662 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C154945302 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C15744967 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C162324750 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C16345878 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C187029079 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C192209626 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C2524010 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C2778311575 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C33923547 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C41008148 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C41895202 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C539667460 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C76155785 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C77805123 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C81917197 @default.
• W223886130 hasConceptScore W223886130C98045186 @default.
• W223886130 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W223886130 hasLocation W2238861301 @default.
• W223886130 hasOpenAccess W223886130 @default.
• W223886130 hasPrimaryLocation W2238861301 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W1458398449 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W1957274265 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2055378923 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2062759075 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2122787871 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2128638129 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2131929938 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2152675384 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2182046151 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2330591666 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2336967621 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2588453938 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2995371169 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W3123355382 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W3137362912 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W370999902 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W51832394 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W75319076 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2587012483 @default.
• W223886130 hasRelatedWork W2964408246 @default.
• W223886130 hasVolume "118" @default.
• W223886130 isParatext "false" @default.
• W223886130 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W223886130 magId "223886130" @default.
• W223886130 workType "article" @default.