A Comparative Study of Higher-Order Thinking and Teaching in the United States and United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-63
Author(s):  
Vibhakumari Solanki ◽  
Brian R. Evans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
Higher Order Thinking ◽  
The United States ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
The United Kingdom

The United States and the United Kingdom have used standardized high-stakes testing as a measurement of students’ cognitive level to determine success in the 21st century. Standardized tests have given teachers guidance to help them determine what to teach students and how to teach to the test. With such increased emphasis on high-stakes standardized tests, students are being taught based on tested content. This study evaluates the frequency of higher-and lower-order items in the respective country’s standardized test, and analyzes the teaching of higher-order thinking within classroom instruction.

High-Stakes Testing, Standardization, and Inequality in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne Au
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Students Of Color ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Race And Class ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Racial Achievement

High-stakes standardized tests standardize which knowledge is assessed, and because consequences are tied to their results, they have the impact of standardizing classroom content, teaching, and learning. The result is that students whose cultural identities do not fit the standardized norms created by test-based must either adapt or are left out of the curriculum and the classroom. This happens in a few key ways. First, as schools face increased pressure to raise test scores, curriculum content that embraces the diversity of student history, culture, and experience gets pushed out. In turn, this standardization of content limits the diversity of teacher and student identities expressed in classroom pedagogical experiences. Finally, given the disparate racial achievement on high-stakes tests, students of color face more intense pressure to perform, while at the same time their educational experiences become increasingly restricted and less rich than those of affluent, whiter students. Additionally, even though educational research has consistently shown that high-stakes testing correlates most strongly with the socioeconomic backgrounds of students and their communities, policymakers and many educators presume that these tests are offer objective measurements of individual merit. This mistaken belief ulitmately serves to hide and justify existing inequalities in the United States under the notion of individual achievement. The overall result being that high-stakes, standardized tests reproduce educational inequalities associated with race and class in the United States.

scholarly journals A Comparative Discussion of the Judicial Disqualification of Directors under the South African Companies Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Locus Standi

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document