Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Education
  4. Education, history, theory
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

13489 results in Education, history, theory

Page 215 of 675

  • Chapter 11 - Developmental assessment for students with additional needs

    • By Kerry Woods, researcher whose work centres on the design of criterionreferenced frameworks to guide assessment., Bernadette Coles-Janess, Research Fellow and lecturer at the Assessment Research Centre, University of Melbourne, where she lectures in both general and specialised Masters’ programs.
  • Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne
  • Book:
    Assessment for Teaching
    Published online:
    17 August 2019
    Print publication:
    18 October 2017, pp 247-265

  • Summary

    Learning Objectives

    In this chapter you will learn to:

  • • identify what is expected of you as a teacher of students with additional needs

  • • understand what it means, and why it is important, to take a developmental, rather than deficit, approach to teaching students with additional needs

  • • use a developmental progression to set learning goals and targets, and to plan a program of tasks and activities to achieve these.

    • This chapter describes how the Assessment for Teaching approach outlined in this book has been applied to support the teaching of students with additional learning needs. It provides detail of a process of assessing students, interpreting results, setting goals, and developing individualised learning plans. Developmental progressions are central to this process, as with all students, and their importance is emphasised in inclusive school contexts where teachers may or may not have experience or training in supporting the learning of students with additional needs.

    Introduction

    The approach taken to assessment and teaching throughout this book is grounded in the philosophy that all students can learn and that teaching and learning are optimal when correctly targeted for students or for groups of students working at similar levels. This chapter applies that approach to the question of how teachers can draw on information presented as a learning progression to design and implement tailored learning programs for students with disabilities or additional needs. This group of students is characterised by very specific and often complex educational needs. The aim of the chapter is to empower teachers of students with additional needs through the use of resources to guide students’ progress as they build the foundations of learning. The themes and ideas that underpin the chapter were introduced in Chapters 1 to 3, and they apply to the education of students with additional needs as they do to all other students.

    Background: Inclusive education

    Inclusive education practices have been widely supported, in principle, since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975) and the Warnock Report (Warnock 1978) outlined the United States and British governments’ respective policies for special education provision. The proclamation, emanating from UNESCO's Salamanca conference, that schools are for ‘all children’ and that ‘every child has a fundamental right to education’ ensured that inclusive educational practices were seen as vital within an international context (UNESCO 1994, pp. viii–xi).

  • Chapter 6 - Writing rubrics

    • By Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne, Michael Francis, Coordinator of Assessment, Learning and Teaching (Secondary) at the University of Melbourne and a teaching specialist at the Assessment Research Centre.
  • Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne
  • Book:
    Assessment for Teaching
    Published online:
    17 August 2019
    Print publication:
    18 October 2017, pp 113-140

  • Summary

    Learning Objectives

    In this chapter you will learn to:

  • • write rubrics that can be used within a developmental model of assessment

  • • understand the role of rubrics in recording the quality of achievements using judgement-based assessments

  • • evaluate the quality of rubrics that are available from a range of sources, including websites

  • • use a language of assessment that is consistent with developmental learning.

    • Usually rubrics are represented as a form of a rating scale, which often fails to help teachers improve student performance or product. This chapter presents a new approach to writing rubrics that fits within the developmental assessment framework described in Chapter 3. We will explore why some forms of rubrics fail to help teachers and we will examine an approach to the evaluation of rubrics. Several case studies and examples are presented as a rationale for writing rubrics. The focus of the approach is on how rubrics and judgement-based assessment can help teachers to improve student performance.

    Introduction

    Teachers using judgement-based assessment must operate using a criterion-referenced framework to interpret the quality of student work. To do this, they need rubrics – or rules – to guide their judgements. The term ‘rubric’, however, is much overused and misunderstood.

    Websites are available providing sets of rubrics for almost every conceivable area of learning, but much of what they offer is unhelpful and some of it is wrong. Although some of the rubrics offered on those sites are useful, almost none is underpinned by a model of measurement and very few appear to be underpinned by a learning theory. One of the first things we need to do when considering rubrics is to have criteria for evaluating them. Then we need to know how to write our own rubrics in such a way that they are useful and of high quality, with minimal risk of misleading students, teachers, parents or collaborative teaching team (CTT) members. Rubrics written and interpreted in a criterion-referenced framework are generally underpinned by both a model of measurement and a learning theory or taxonomy. This chapter describes how to write rubrics within such a framework.

  • Introduction

  • Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne
  • Book:
    Assessment for Teaching
    Published online:
    17 August 2019
    Print publication:
    18 October 2017, pp 1-13

  • Summary

    Case study: differentiated and Developmental teaching in mathematics at Sea lake high school

    This historical case study, first documented in 1970, describes an early practical application of some of the key ideas of this book. It shows what dramatic results can be obtained by the practical use of assessment for teaching. A more recent case study is provided in Chapter 12 to illustrate the application of the approach as it is now practised.

    Teachers often avoid ability-based grouping because of both the classroom organisation required and the belief that there is a stigma attached to lower-ability group formation. This case study illustrates an approach used by Patrick Griffin, the lead author of this book. It is a description of the method of teaching mathematics put into practice by him as a new teacher at Sea Lake High School in Victoria. Using this method, the mathematics teachers of the school succeeded in overcoming problems of student apathy and poor performance.

    The Program

    The teaching program was developed over four years of secondary mathematics and focused on three levels of competence. Failure in mathematics was eradicated. A primary goal was to target instruction at a level where students would be challenged but could experience success. The three levels were:

  • fundamentals

  • practice involving use of these fundamentals and some theoretical work

  • advanced work involving some research for better students.

    • The students advanced at their own rate, depending on sub-test results for each section of the work. Testing was carried out at three levels targeted at the student ability level.

    Initially, the students were apathetic towards the discipline, and their abilities varied enormously; there were no Year 12 mathematics students in the school, and only correspondence classes at Year 11. The teaching team decided to set down overall aims for mathematics in this school.

    Aims Of The Program

    The teaching method grew from the following aims:

  • To offer a common course for all, but to cater for different levels of ability within it, regarding no level as closed to higher studies.

  • To enable the students to be independent, so that they might be able to read and learn from a text and not rely solely on ‘spoon-feeding’.

  • To form an attitude that mathematics is an enjoyable subject and is meaningful, and by doing so to stimulate interest in the subject.

  • Chapter 10 - Interpreting data to evaluate growth

  • Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne
  • Book:
    Assessment for Teaching
    Published online:
    17 August 2019
    Print publication:
    18 October 2017, pp 226-246

  • Summary

    Learning Objectives

    In this chapter you will learn to:

  • • examine the elements of student and class reports, and explore anomalies in assessment data

  • • examine value-added analyses at a teacher level

  • • identify ways of improving assessment data through review of test administration

  • • interpret and use data to plan targeted teaching

  • • examine the implications of targeted teaching for classroom organisation and other aspects of the educational environment

  • • use data systematically to formalise the evaluation of links between assessment data and student interventions.

    • This chapter promotes the development of competence in data analysis for monitoring progress in teaching and learning. It draws attention to the importance of reliable data and the role of both direct and indirect evidence in the inference making process. The chapter introduces teachers to the use of two-points-in-time data as a means of evaluating both student progress and the efficacy of teaching practice. It asks teachers to consider the implications flowing from the use of quartile comparison analyses, which often show that low-achieving students make progress while supposedly higher-ability students stagnate. The chapter also encourages teachers to consider the value they add to individual students, and presents a new way of examining value-add.

    Introduction

    Comparing data from two points in time allows a teacher to identify how much progress has been made. It provides evidence about the rate of progress and can be used to evaluate the efficacy of the teaching interventions. This type of analysis heightens the capacity for critical reflection, adding valuable information to the process by which records or logs of interventions are examined to identify effective (or ineffective) teaching strategies. Using this approach, the teacher is well placed to make professional judgements about where and how to intervene to improve teaching. This is enhanced if the review is undertaken within a collaborative teaching team (CTT).

    Student reports

    The student profile report maps a student's stage of learning and progress across a number of learning domains. These might be reading, mathematics and/or problem-solving. An example of a profile report featuring these three domains is provided in Figure 10.1. These are powerful reports. They provide information about the nature of what is learned, the amount learned and the rate of learning.

  • Annex 2 - Using the online tests and reports: Objective testing

    • By Masa Pavlovic, has worked in the field of education assessment, test development, data management and analysis, neurosciences and software development for the past 10 years., Nafisa Awwal, holds a Bachelor of Computer Science and completed her Master of Information Management and Systems at Monash University., Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne, B. M. Monjurul Alom, computer programmer and platform developer in the Assessment Research Centre, University of Melbourne.
  • Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne
  • Book:
    Assessment for Teaching
    Published online:
    17 August 2019
    Print publication:
    18 October 2017, pp 300-310

  • Summary

    This annex guides you through a sample of the Assessment Research Centre Online Testing System (ARCOTS) that you can access online using the code provided with this book. Detailed instructions are given here to take you through the assessment process. This will allow you to try out the use of online developmental assessment to plan teaching strategies for implementation in your classroom. We encourage you, when using the tests, to follow the CTT cycle discussed in Chapter 2, including planning, implementing and evaluating your teaching strategies.

    ARCOTS overview

    The ARCOTS tests were developed as part of the Assessment and Learning Partnerships Project (see the Introduction for more details). They are intended to be used by teachers as one of many sources of evidence that reflect student learning. They provide teachers with a means to track student progress for the purpose of informing and evaluating teaching. The test results are used to identify the point of learning readiness or zone of proximal development (ZPD) and they are reported as a level on the corresponding developmental progression. Three progressions were developed in the Assessment and Learning Partnerships Project for three learning domains: numeracy, reading comprehension and problem-solving; each domain has a corresponding test. The reports are available instantaneously, through ARCOTS, upon completion of an assessment. The progressions are discussed in Chapter 2.

    Technical requirements

    Table A2.1 lists the minimum technical requirements to successfully conduct ARCOTS tests.

    ARCOTS can also be run on iPads using a Flash-compatible browser, such as Puffin, iSwifter or similar. If you are considering testing with iPads, we advise a trial run prior to commencing student testing to check compatibility and speed.

    Note: please check whether you need an IT technician to whitelist (allow access to) the ARCOTS site in your school.

    Test access

    Samples of ARCOTS developmental assessments and the reporting system are provided on the website accompanying this book. The purpose of the sample tests is to give teachers an experience of using developmental progressions to inform teaching and implement some of the processes described in this book.

    Before the testing and reporting systems can be accessed you will need to register with the code and the link provided on the companion website. To register you will need to have a valid email address.

  • 6 - Increasing Access to and Retention in Primary Education in Malaysia

    • By Lorraine Pe Symaco, Senior Lecturer, Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • Edited by Lee Hock Guan
  • Book:
    Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    12 January 2018
    Print publication:
    27 September 2017, pp 142-165

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Access to and quality of education have been key agendas of the Malaysian government to foster national unity and enhance economic growth. The First Malaysia Plan (1966–70) and the subsequent plans give much importance to education: “unless the education system is geared to meet the development needs of the country, there will be a misallocation of an important economic resource, which will slow down the rate of economic and social advance” (Government of Malaysia 1965, p. 163). The government allocates substantial financial resources to education annually, constituting about 17 per cent of the total public expenditure.

    The Malaysian Ministry of Education has worked closely with state and district education offices, international organizations (e.g., United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Child Aid Borneo and Human Rights Commission, to expand access toprimary schooling to all children. However, access to education remains lower for children who are poor, live in remote and sparsely populated area and without citizenship documentation. It should be noted that children without citizenship documents are not captured in the calculations of Net Enrolment Ratio (NER), and thus represents an additional population of out-of-school children and youth.

    The following sections will discuss patterns of primary school access and retention, quality and equity in Malaysia, and policies affecting access and retention in the sector.

    WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED?

    Patterns of Primary School Access and Retentionin Malaysia

    Figure 6.1 shows the primary school NER for selected years (indicated by dots) between 1970 and 1972 as well as between 1994 and 2005. This rate measures the proportion of children aged 7 to 13 who were enrolledin primary school. One notes that this rate was already relatively high in 1970 (84.3 per cent) and had increased to 96.2 per cent in 1994. Between 1999 and 2005, although minor fluctuations occurred, the percentage of primary school-aged children enrolled remained at or above 95 per cent but did not reach 100 per cent (with the highest net enrolment of 97.8 per cent, recorded in 2000). It is important to note that the figures — both the numerators and denominators of these percentages — exclude undocumented children (e.g., those whose parents are refugees or migrant workers), who face special challenges in gaining access to public schools.

  • 1 - English in Singapore and Malaysia: Common Roots, Different Fruits

    • By Lubna Alsagoff, Associate Professor, English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
  • Edited by Lee Hock Guan
  • Book:
    Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    12 January 2018
    Print publication:
    27 September 2017, pp 14-35

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Singapore and Malaysia share a common history as colonial territories of the British. Each gained their independence from the British at around the same time, with the two countries even bound together as a single nation for a short period of time. Yet, if we examine the language policies of the two nations, we see a distinct difference in the paths that Singapore and Malaysia have taken in their approaches to managing linguistic diversity, and in their stances towards English. While Singapore has unambiguously embraced the utilitarian value of English and placed it as central to its language in education policies, Malaysia has, in many ways, been more Ambivalent and circumspect about the value and place of English especially in relation to Malay.

    In this chapter, we examine how their language policies have also sprung from very different sets of ideologies about language, which has meant that despite their common roots, Singapore and Malaysia have taken significantly divergent paths, resulting in very different outcomes or “fruits”. The chapter is organized in three sections. In the first section, we trace the historical development of English in Singapore; in the second, we examine that of Malaysia, followed by a discussion which compares and contrasts the language in education policies of these two countries.

    SINGAPORE

    The Republic of Singapore is a relatively young nation, which celebrated only its fiftieth year of independence in 2015. Despite this, and the fact that it is a small island with no natural resources apart from its geographical position, Singapore has grown to become a thriving metropolitan country with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity) per capita that remarkably ranks it as the third richest nation in the world (International Monetary Fund 2014). This outstanding achievement is no mean feat for a country less than half the size of London and which less than fifty years ago had a GDP that placed it as a struggling Third World nation. Among the many factors credited for Singapore's phenomenal economic success are its language policies, seen by the Singapore government as instrumental to its economic competitiveness (Ng 2008).

  • 7 - Primary and Secondary Education in Myanmar: Challenges Facing Current Reforms

    • By Brooke Zobrist, an education consultant in Myanmar and the founder of the non-government organization Girl Determined, Patrick McCormick, Head, Yangon Branch Office, École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), Yangon, Myanmar
  • Edited by Lee Hock Guan
  • Book:
    Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    12 January 2018
    Print publication:
    27 September 2017, pp 166-194

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Since the political changes starting in 2011, the new quasi-civilian Myanmar government has announced a number of reforms to the education sector. For several decades before that, Myanmar had spent far less on education than any of its neighbours. When a government has failed to provide adequate education to enough citizens, many embrace decentralization as a strategy to improve their education system, often with the encouragement of international advisors and donors. The Myanmar government has stated that decentralization is a goal for their provision of basic education. It has also stated its intention to increase funding and the number of schools and teachers, increase the number of years of compulsory education, reform the curriculum, draft an education law, and reach out to non-state actors that have signed ceasefire agreements with the central government.

    Against this background of long-term underfunding and neglect, what is the nature of, and prospects for, decentralization in education inMyanmar? Can decentralization be effective in addressing the deep-seated problems in the Myanmar education sector? To explore answers to these questions, we have examined relationships within the formal education system in the Ministry of Education across various levels of government, from the national down to the state or region, and below that to the district and township. We describe the provision of education starting from the colonial era in the late nineteenth century through to the present. We have also reviewed some of the non-state actors involved in the provision of education, especially as their involvement throws into relief challenges that the formal education system faces. We then present our findings, which suggest that of this writing (2014), decentralization, to the extent that is has happened at all, is limited. The institutional culture of the Ministry of Education, together with societal attitudes towards education and perceptions of the proper roles of students, teachers, and Ministry staff, all limit decentralization.

    METHODOLOGY

    We have based our findings on a literature review and on interviews with key participants and decision-makers in two regions, Mon State and Yangon Region. The purpose of this review and interviews was to gauge how people involved with the provision of education understand “decentralization”, what decisions and responsibilities have been handed down from higher to lower levels of administration, and how they understand their own role in the process.

  • Introduction

    • By Lee Hock Guan, Senior Fellow, Regional Social and Cultural Studies, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore
  • Edited by Lee Hock Guan
  • Book:
    Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    12 January 2018
    Print publication:
    27 September 2017, pp 1-13

  • Summary

    Since Southeast Asian countries attained political independence, they have created “national education systems … as part of the state forming process which established the modern nation state” (Green 1997, p. 170). Framed in the context of the nation-state, education was tasked with the overlapping objectives of state and nation-building and national economic development. All states in the region nationalized and monopolized education and founded largely public-funded centralized education systems to teach literacy through the medium of a national language — in the case of Singapore, an official language — and to create a shared national culture by using a common syllabus. In recent decades, however, globalization, which has profoundly transformed the economic, social, cultural and technological processes and structures throughout the world, has also impacted in varying ways and degrees the national education systems across the region. How Southeast Asian countries should reformulate and restructure their education systems and which strategy they ought to adopt to prepare to adapt and deal with globalization clearly depended on each country's societal make-up and economic situation and level of economic development.

    How has globalization impacted and shaped the development of national education systems in Southeast Asia? In brief, globalization has brought about four interrelated changes to the education systems: (i) increasing demand for highly skilled and qualified labour; (ii) shifts in governance; (iii) privatization or commodification of education; and (iv) internationalization of education (Altbach and Knight 2007; Carnoy 2005; Robertson 2007). The emergent neo-liberal ideological paradigm accompanying globalization also dramatically altered the prevailing post-independent centralized governance and provision of education. In Southeast Asian states, in recent times the education sector has been subjected to varying degrees of decentralization and privatization or commodification. Moreover, the privatization of the region's education sector is occurring in the context of the growing internationalization of education, especially of higher education. Increasing global economic competitiveness and the emergence of the knowledge economy have raised the national, especially for more developed Southeast Asian economies, and international demand for tertiary-educated skilled and qualified personnel. While the scope, timing and pace of these transformations to the education systems differed in each Southeast Asian state, the main observable trend is the downscaling of state role in the governance and provision of education.

  • 2 - Globalization, Educational Language Policy and Nation-Building in Malaysia

    • By Tan Yao Sua, Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, R. Santhiram, Dean and Professor, School of Education, Languages and Communications, Wawasan Open University (WOU), Penang, Malaysia
  • Edited by Lee Hock Guan
  • Book:
    Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    12 January 2018
    Print publication:
    27 September 2017, pp 36-58

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Globalization is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. It is best understood as a modern process as well as one with historical antecedents and continuities with past eras (Tazreiter and Tham 2013). From the contemporary perspective, it involves the intensified flows of capital, goods, people, images and discourses around the globe, driven by technological innovations mainly in the field of media and information and communications technology (ICT) and resulting in new patterns of global activity, community and culture (Blommaert 2010).

    Globalization has had a profound impact on the development of education worldwide. One of its impacts is in the area of educational language policy, which has a lot to do with the global spread of English brought about by globalization. Within the contemporary context of globalization, the global spread of English has been accentuated by agents of globalization, especially the neo-liberal ideology embraced by transnational corporations (TNCs) that use English as the in-house working language and the advent of ICT that relies on English as its operational language (Tan and Santhiram 2014). Both agents of globalization have increased the instrumental value of English in periphery-English countries, leading to the spread of English to these countries. For instance, in Russia alone, 50 million people are learning English. Meanwhile, English is the main foreign language in China (Watson 2000), and proficiency in this language is a key university entry requirement (Stanley and Lee 2011). What is worthy of note here is that the number of speakers of English as a second language (350 million according to one estimate) has exceeded the number of native English speakers (Nettle and Romaine 2000). Among other things, this spread of English is facilitated by increased emphasis given to English via educational policy intervention. In fact, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization report (2002) notes that as the result of challenges arising from globalization, educational systems around the world are paying “special attention to foreign languages, first and foremost it is English” (cf. Rizvi and Lingard 2010, p. 176). Consequently, educational institutions become the sites where “the hegemony of the English language is spread, reproduced, but also contested” (Coulby 2005, p. 279).

  • 4 - Higher Education in Malaysia: Access, Equity and Quality

    • By Hena Mukherjee, Education consultant and was previously Lead Education Specialist with the World Bank, Jasbir S. Singh, Former Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Rozilini M. Fernandez-Chung, Currently Vice-President, HELP University College (Malaysia), and was formerly with the Malaysian Qualifications Agency, T. Marimuthu, Adjunct Professor, School of Education and Cognitive Sciences, Asia e University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and formerly was Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • Edited by Lee Hock Guan
  • Book:
    Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    12 January 2018
    Print publication:
    27 September 2017, pp 83-110

  • Summary

    BACKGROUND

    Since independence in 1957, Malaysia has transformed itself from an agrarian to an increasingly industrial and globalized economy. Malaysia was formed in 1963 comprising Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, with the last leaving the group in 1965. In the country of 30-odd million, 62.1 per cent are Malays and other indigenous groups, 21.8 per cent Chinese, 6.5 per cent Indians and 9.6 per cent Others (includes 8.7 per cent non-citizens). Malaya and Singapore were served by the University of Malaya (UM), located in Singapore, until 1957 when a branch campus was established in Kuala Lumpur. In 1962, it split into two entities, University of Malaya and University of Singapore, as befits the two sovereign states.

    Formal steps were taken post-independence to develop higher education institutions to provide the high-level skills that the industrializing nation required. These aspirations took particular shape after the civil disturbances of 1969. Higher education in Malaysia expanded exponentially over the last four decades with dramatic improvement in access to public and private higher education institutions (HEIs). The factors contributing to increased access were primarily high secondary enrolment and completion, building on democratization and universalization of the system; an increasingly diversified institutional pattern of universities, colleges, polytechnics and community colleges catering to various levels of achievement; a burgeoning private higher education sector as a result of liberalization policies; and a combination of public and private sources in the financing of HEIs.

    This chapter examines current higher education policies and implementation in Malaysia, understanding their historical antecedents in relation to higher education access, equity and quality issues. The issues are analysed within the overall context of the need for well-qualified and highly skilled graduate participation in an increasingly globalized knowledge-based economy with the goal of reaching high income status as envisioned by Vision 2020 (Mohamad 1991). The key challenge is human capital growth. Underlying the discussion is the question: which policies and actions have worked, and which need to be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the nation's talent pool will match the demands of a high income, knowledge economy?

    METHODOLOGY AND DATA

    The study draws heavily on government documentation issued by the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), and the Department of Statistics, particularly its Census Reports and Labour Force Surveys. Data provided by officials and politicians to the press have been included.

Page 215 of 675