State-of-the-Art Report

Zelinka, Jozef; Parreira do Amaral, Marcelo; König, Joseph; Neves, Tiago; Ferraz, Hélder; Benasso, Sebastiano; Filippo, Davide; Pandolfini, Valeria

Zusammenfassung

The European funded research project Constructing Learning Outcomes in Europe. A MultiLevel Analysis of (Under-)Achievement in the Life Course (CLEAR) is researching the factors that affect the quality of learning outcomes across European regions. It intends to spark innovative policy approaches to tackle academic (under)achievement and increase social upward mobility for young Europeans. CLEAR is inquiring into the construction of learning outcomes and perceives the latter not as a self-evident phenomenon, but rather as resulting from manifold intersecting institutional arrangements, spatial and socio-economic determinants, discursive and socio-cultural influences, as well as individual experiences, dispositions, cognitive and psycho-emotional abilities. It is the combination of these multiple factors that CLEAR seeks to examine and understand to better inform policymaking and forward the research on inclusive and resilient societies. In order to inquire into this complex issue, CLEAR has designed a mixed-method, multilevel research study based on empirical and comparative analyses, as well as innovative participatory strategies. With respect to the project’s overall aim, the State-of-the-Art Report (Report) is a central document providing a unified analytical, theoretical and methodological approach to the study of learning outcomes. The main goal of the Report is to inform the project’s study on three particular sets of issues, in particular 1) on the current state of research on learning outcomes and academic (under)achievement, 2) on the theoretical, analytical and methodological research design of the study and its operationalisation in the empirical fieldwork, and 3) on the overarching research questions. In the Report, we proceed in five steps: First, we sharpen our core theoretical approaches – Life Course Research, Intersectionality, Spatial Justice – and specify their contribution to the research study; second, we define our research object – learning outcomes – as well as our five analytical approaches – individual, institutional, structural, spatial, relational –; third, we review the current debates on learning outcomes and academic (under)achievement on national and international levels; fourth, we present our methodological approach and describe the operationalisation of the study in our empirical Work Packages; fifth, we synthetise the preliminary results and develop the overarching research questions and guiding research assumptions. The results of the Report can be summarised as follows: − The project’s theoretical approaches show great potential in exploring the construction of learning outcomes, productively turning the focus either on the opportunity structures and agencies of young people (Life Course Research), socially constructed and oppressing nature of learning outcomes (Intersectionality), or unjust spatial division and distribution of rights, opportunities and resources (Spatial Justice). The proven and novel theories mutually support each other without creating redundancies and/or discrepancies. − The dominant understanding of learning outcomes as statistically measurable units portrays the former as self-evident and governable phenomena, not accounting for the vast complexity of factors involved in their construction, which inevitably creates divisions and categorises individuals into low-achievers or highachievers based on numeric outcomes alone. − The project’s five analytical entry points – individual, institutional, structural, spatial, relational – encompass the variety of factors involved in the construction of learning outcomes and together with theoretical perspectives articulate into one integrative foundational grid for the collection of contextual information. − The conceptual debate on learning outcomes and (under)achievement shows the need to re-conceptualise both terms, which often focus on observable aspects of learning and with the aim to provide evidence-based knowledge for better informed policymaking. − The scholarly and public debates in the countries studied show that learning outcomes are often treated as something which can be compared using largescale studies. The focus of the studies on formal education and the placement of the accountability on individuals and their imminent surrounding (family, teachers) once again underscores the limited understanding of the concept, with little space for questioning the interplay of institutional and structural aspects, but also the impact of spatiality on learning performances. − The design of the project as a mixed-method, multi-level study applying variety of approaches – quantitative analyses, policy surveys, institutional analyses and literature reviews, as well as qualitative studies with young people, comparative analyses and participatory tools – enables us to complementarily apply the research tools and create synergies between various Work Packages to yield new knowledge relevant for diverse audiences. − The theoretical points of departure help us to re-conceptualise learning outcomes as socially constructed and contingent phenomena resulting from the interplay of manifold intersecting individual, institutional, structural and spatial factors. Against this background, we have formulated our overarching research questions: − What factors are involved in the construction of learning outcomes and how do their interplay shape the expectations on certain levels of learning outcomes? To what extent are young people involved in their construction as active agents? − What do the local/regional opportunity structures of young people look like and how do they affect academic (under)achievement of youth in vulnerable positions? To what extent are social and spatial inequalities embedded in and possibly reproduced by the assessment of learning outcomes? − What is the impact of spatial distribution of educational sites on the quality of learning outcomes? How are spaces affecting (under)achievement and to what extent are they reflected in the educational policymaking?