Search

Background: We examine the sensitivity of the Heyneman-Loxley Effect to the influence of an error-prone family background measure in 15 education systems from Southern and Eastern Africa. Our aim is to revisit a claim by Abby Riddell from the November 1989 issue of the "Comparative Education Review" concerning the reliability of family background measures and the estimation of the Heyneman-Loxley Effect. Three questions guide our study: does national income have an association with the reliability of a family background measure, is the association between a family background measure and student achievement sensitive to measurement error, and is the association between national income and the school effect sensitive to measurement error? Methods: Our analysis relies on the SACMEQ III data archive and, most importantly, a known error-prone family background measure (i.e., socioeconomic status index) and its corresponding measurement error (i.e., conditional standard error of measurement). For each SACMEQ III education system, we calculate the reliability of the socioeconomic status index and examine its association with national income. We use a Bayesian multilevel regression model to estimate naive and correction parameters representing the association between the socioeconomic status index and student achievement. Finally, we explore the associations between national income and the naive and correction estimates for the school effect across SACMEQ III education systems. Results: We observe three results. First, the association between national income and the reliability of the socioeconomic status index appears negative among SACMEQ III education systems (albeit questionable due to the small n-size and influential outliers). Second, the association between the socioeconomic status index and student achievement is sensitive to measurement error across content areas and SACMEQ III education systems. Third and finally, the association between national income and the school effect is insensitive to measurement error across content areas and SACMEQ III education systems. Conclusions: Throughout our study, we discuss measurement error, its consequences, and why the correction of error-prone family background measures is important. We highlight the need for auxiliary information for measurement error correction (e.g., reliability ratio, conditional standard error of measurement). Lastly, in addition to encouraging the correction of error-prone family background measures when attempting to replicate the Heyneman-Loxley Effect, we invite further research on improving the reliability and comparability of family background measures.

An editorial is presented on poor record of publishing scholarship conducted outside of the US. Topics include experience of geographically based academic inequity and a passion for improving access to publishing; and core member of the organizing committee to avoid accidental reproduction of oppressive patterns within the group's activities and discussions.

Background: While existing evidence strongly suggests that immigrant students underperform relative to their native counterparts on measures of mathematics, science, and reading, country-level analyses assessing the homogeneity of the immigrant achievement gap across different factors have not been systematically conducted. Beyond finding a statistically significant average achievement gap, existing findings show considerable variation. The goal of this quantitative synthesis was to analyze effect sizes which compared immigrants to natives on international mathematics, reading, and science examinations. Methods: We used data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). We investigated whether the achievement gap is larger in some content areas than others (among mathematics, science, and reading), across the different types of tests (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS), across academic grades and age, and whether it has changed across time. Standardized mean differences between immigrant and native students were obtained using data from 2000 to 2009 for current Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Results: Statistically significant weighted mean effect sizes favored native test takers in mathematics (d-bar*[subscript math]=0.38), reading (d-bar*[subscript reading]=0.38, and science (d-bar*[subscript science]=0.43). Effects of moderators differed across content areas. Conclusions: Our analyses have the potential to contribute to the literature about how variation in the immigrant achievement gap relates to different national-level factors.

AbstractDespite recent calls to engage in scholarship with attention to anti-racism, equity, and social justice at a global level in Health Professions Education (HPE), the field has made few significant advances in incorporating the views of the so-called “Other” in understanding the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge as well as the epistemic justification of knowledge production. Editors, authors, and reviewers must take responsibility for questioning existing systems and structures, specifically about how they diffuse the knowledge of a few and silence the knowledge of many. This article presents 12 recommendations proposed by The Global South Counterspace Authors Collective (GSCAC), a group of HPE professionals, representing countries in the Global South, to help the Global North enact practical changes to become more inclusive and engage in authentic and representative work in HPE publishing. This list is not all-encompassing but a first step to begin rectifying non-inclusive structures in our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractWhat was the Educational Challenge?What was the Proposed Solution?How was the Proposed Solution Implemented?What Lessons Learned are Relevant to a Wider Audience?What are the Next Steps?Representation gaps in medical education publishing are widely recognized and may be attributed to epistemic injustice, defined as ‘wrong done to someone in their capacity as a knower.’ Although peer review is meant to ensure ‘rigor,’ some quality assurance practices can inadvertently silence entire populations and impede understanding of a field’s foundational concepts.To honor our journal’s commitment to equitable knowledge production, a diversity, equity, and inclusion working group at Teaching and Learning in Medicine (TLM) reimagined rigor to include striving for a ‘more equitable, diverse, and inclusive research system.’We implemented structural peer review reform at TLM by adapting Hogan et al.’s Dimensionality and R4P framework for health equity, prioritizing change in our communication with contributors.Since implementation, our journal has received feedback expressing appreciation for humanity and personal connection in our peer review, and we have observed increased publications from geographically marginalized authors. We believe our outcomes result from respecting marginalized authors’ authority to pursue their own interests, concerns, and successes with respect to knowledge production.We believe our approach can be adopted by other peer-reviewed journals. We invite application and critique of our framework to advance community development in creating relevant, accessible, and equitable knowledge production for all people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]