Article abstract

Journal of Educational Research and Reviews
Research Article | Published May 2023 | Volume 11, Issue 4, pp. 68-74.
 doi: https://doi.org/10.33495/jerr_v11i4.23.118

 

The production and distribution of scientific knowledge: A global perspective

 

 

 
David Chen*
 Ghada Wattad


Email Author

Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

 

 

……..…....….....…………............……………..........…..……….........................……………………...............……………………………….....………………...
 Citation: Chen D, Wattad G (2023). The production and distribution of scientific knowledge: A global perspective. J. Edu. Res. Rev. 11(4):68-74. doi: 10.33495/jerr_v11i4.23.118.
……..…....….....…………............……………..........…..……….........................……………………...............……………………………….....………………...

 

 

 Abstract 

 

The educational enterprise is not omnipotent and is heavily constrained by natural, socioeconomic and pedagogical factors. The present research aims to study the state of the production and distribution of scientific and mathematics knowledge worldwide using the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 big data bank. The first finding is that the distribution of this knowledge shows that about two-third of the world's population belongs to quality groups one, two, and three, representing the low-achieving section of the proficiency scale. The second finding is that there is practically no sign of domain specificity. Thus, the learning problems do not reside in the curriculum but in some higher cognitive factors such as general intelligence or developmental stage. It is high time to adopt educational policies oriented toward the real world rather than an aspired one.

 

Keywords  PISA 2018   scientific literacy   quality groups   proficiency distribution   educational efficiency   

 individual differences  

 

Copyright © 2023 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.

This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

 References 


Bourdieu P, Richardson JG (1986). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. The forms of capital, 241, 258.

Chen D (2022). Toward scientific foundations for Education Science.

Sunderman G, Kim JS, Orfield G (2005). NCLB Meets School Realities, Lessons from the Field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage/Corwin Press.

Galton F (1907). Inquiries into Human Faculty 1883. Hanushek EA, Woessmann L (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. J. Econ. Growth, 17:267-321.

Hanushek EA, Woessmann L (2020). Education, knowledge capital, and economic growth. The Econ. Edu. pp. 171-182.

Hattie J (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship Teach. Learn. Psychol. 1(1):79-91.

Mullis IV, Martin MO, Foy P, Kelly DL, Fishbein B (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls. Bc. Edu/timss2019/international-results. OECD (2018). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I) What Students Know and Can Do. https://www.oecd.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i-5f07c754-en.htm .

Papa R, Jackson KM, Sánchez M, Rosario-Moore A, Soles B, Chen D, Arar K (2021). Education in 2051. In Artificial Intelligence, Human Agency and the Educational Leader, Springer. pp. 133-164.

Pinker S (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Penguin. Schleicher A (2018). World class. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Wikipedia (2022). International organization for standards, Iso/Cs Quality and environmental policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ International_Organization_for_Standardization.