International expert agenda in education: Key characteristics and problem areas

Introduction. This article presents an analysis of the global expert discourse in education prior to the Covid-2019 pandemic.
Aim. The current research aims to analyse expert reports, regarding the theoretical foundations, articulated key trends, stakeholders and skills seen as educational outcomes.
Methodology and research methods. The sample consists of 25 reports published in 2012–2020 by leading expert organisations (OECD, World Bank, etc.) devoted to the problems of education (school or higher education) and the relationship between education and the labour market. The main research method is critical discourse analysis.
Results. Despite the dominance of the ideas of human capital in these reports, the relationship between “demand”, seen through the prism of global trends, and “supply” in the form of skills that education should provide, turns out to be problematic. Among the main stakeholders in education, managers and administration of educational institutions are emphasised in expert reports. Employers and learners are seen as rather passive players in the educational field. Physical health skills and agency skills are underestimated in global expert discourse despite their increasing relevance demonstrated by COVID-19 pandemic. These findings call for new approaches in global discussion about educational content and results in the context of global pandemic COVID-19.
The scientific novelty of the research lies in the empirically grounded analysis of leading international expert discourse, about which there are many stereotypes, often without an evidence base.
The practical significance of the study is in the identification of concrete problem areas of international expert discussion in education (at the time before the outbreak of the pandemic) that require strengthening, including on the basis of new research.

1. Komatsu H., Rappleye J. A new global policy regime founded on invalid statistics? Hanushek, Woessmann, PISA, and economic growth. Comparative Education. 2017; 53 (2): 166–191. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2017.1300008

2. Sorokin P. S., Frumin I. “Utility” of education and the role of transformative agency: Policy challenges and agendas. Policy Futures in Education. 2021 (in print)

3. Kuzminov Ya., Sorokin P., Froumin I. Generic and specific skills as components of human capital: New challenges for education theory and practice. Foresight and STI Governance. 2019; 13 (2): 19–41. DOI: 10.17323/2500-2597.2019.2.19.41

4. Carvalho L. M., Costa E. Seeing education with one’s own eyes and through PISA lenses: Considerations of the reception of PISA in European countries. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 2015; 36 (5): 638–646. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2013.871449

5. Faas D. Germany after the ‘PISA shock’: Revisiting national, European and multicultural values in curriculum and policy discourses. Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies, Pedagogies. 2013; (33): 43–44. DOI: 10.21832/9781783090815-005

6. Klees S. J. Human capital and rates of return: Brilliant ideas or ideological dead ends? Comparative Education Review. 2016; 60 (4): 644–672. DOI: 10.1086/688063

7. Tan E. Human capital theory: A holistic criticism. Review of Educational Research. 2014; 84 (3): 411–445. DOI: 10.3102/0034654314532696

8. Marginson S. Limitations of human capital theory. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (2): 287–301. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1359823

9. Yushkov A. N., Agramakova O. V. Development of engineering skills: Through research and projects. Obrazovatel’naya politika = Educational Policy [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 10]; 5. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/proekty-i-issledovaniyadlya-razvitiya-nauchnyh-i-inzhenernyh-umeniy (In Russ.)

10. Paakkari L., Okan O. COVID-19: Health literacy is an underestimated problem. The Lancet Public Health. 2020; 5 (5): 249–268. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30086-4

11. Dobbins M. et al. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013; 2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007651

12. Kaznacheyev S. V., Strakhova I. B., Lopatina O. V. Physical culture and its role in training the students of non-sports higher educational institutions. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2015; 1 (3): 156–164. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2015-3-156-164 (In Russ.)

13. Arnold J., Clarke D. J. What is ‘agency’? Perspectives in science education research. International Journal of Science Education. 2014; 36 (5): 735–754. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.825066

14. Sorokin P. S. ‘Transformative agency’ as an object of sociological analysis: Contemporary discussions and the role of education. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov = RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2021; 21 (1): 124–138. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2021-21-1-124-138 (In Russ.)

15. Sorokin P., Froumin I. “Structure-agency” problem in the XXI century: Social development and research implications. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya = Sociological Studies. 2020; (7): 27–36. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250009571-1

16. Sorokin P. S., Zykova A. V. ‘Transforming agency’ as a subject of research and development in the 21st century: Review and interpretation of international experience. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskiye i sotsial’nyye peremeny = Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2021; 4. (in print) (In Russ.)

17. Abramova I. E., Shishmolina E. P. The formation of students’ self-organisation and self-assessment skills in a competitive foreign learning environment: Case study. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (10): 161–185. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-10-161-185 (In Russ.)

18. Dobryakova M. S., Frumin I. D., Barannikov K. A., Remorenko I. M., Ziil N., Moss J., Khautamyaki J. Universal competences and new literacy: From slogans to reality. Ed. by M. S. Dobryakova, I. D. Frumin. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 10]. Available from: https://ioe.hse.ru/keycomp (In Russ)

19. Parker R. Measuring health literacy. What? So what? Now what? In: Measures of Health Literacy: Workshop Summary [Internet]. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Health Literacy. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009 [cited 2021 July 01]. p. 91–98. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45386/

20. Whitehead M. The concept of physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education. 2001; 6 (2): 127–138. DOI: 10.1080/1740898010060205

21. Kolbanov V. V. Professiogram’s components for future teacher of health study. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2016; (6): 152–167. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2016-6-152-167(In Russ.)

22. Xia J., Wu P., Deng Q., Yan R., Yang R., Lv B., Wang J., Yu J. Relationship between health literacy and quality of life among cancer survivors in China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9 (12). DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028458

23. Rudolf K., Biallas B., Dejonghe L. A., Grieben C., Rückel L. M., Schaller A., Froböse I. Influence of health literacy on the physical activity of working adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the TRISEARCH trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16 (24): 4948. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16244948

24. Vaughn M. What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever? Theory into Practice. 2020; 59 (2): 109–118. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2019.1702393

25. Khusainova S. V, Bakhvalov S. Y., A regional system to forecast the social-economic development: The case of the RF regions. European Research Studies Journal [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 July 01]; 21 (1): 588–601. Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxy2017i3bp588-601.html

26. Smith R., Kuchah H., Lamb M. Learner autonomy in developing countries. In: Autonomy in language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave Pivot; 2018. P. 7–27. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-52998-5_2

27. Galvin B., Randel A., Collins B., Johnson R. Changing the focus of locus (of control): A targeted review of the locus of control literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2018; 39 (7): 820–833. DOI: 10.1002/job.2275

28. Schoon I. Conceptualising learner agency: a socio-ecological developmental approach [Internet]. Published by the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies. 2018 [cited 2021 July 01]. Available from: https://www.llakes.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LLAKES%20Research%20Paper%2064%20-%20Schoon%2C%20I.pdf

29. Anderson J. R. Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Psychology Press; 2013. DOI: 10.4324/9780203728178

30. Wigelsworth M., et al. A review of key issues in the measurement of children’s social and emotional skills. Educational Psychology in Practice. 2010; 26 (2): 173–186. DOI: 10.1080/02667361003768526

31. Heckman J. J., Kautz T. Fostering and measuring skills: Interventions that improve character and cognition. National Bureau of Economic Research. 2013; no. w19656. DOI: 10.3386/w19656

32. Engel L. C., Rutkowski D., Thompson, G. Toward an international measure of global competence? A critical look at the PISA 2018 framework. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2019; 17 (2): 117–131. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1642183

33. Van Dijk T. A. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2001; (1): 95–120. DOI: 10.4135/9780857028020.d7

34. Higgins C., Walker R. Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/ environmental reports. In Accounting Forum. 2012; 36 (3): 194–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003

35. Açıkgöz S., Haudenhuyse R., Aşçı H. Social inclusion for whom and towards what end? A critical discourse analysis of youth and sport policies in Turkey. Journal of Youth Studies. 2019; 22 (3): 330–345. DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2018.1506571

36. Berkovich I., Benoliel P. Understanding OECD representations of teachers and teaching: a visual discourse analysis of covers in OECD documents. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2019; 17 (2): 132–146. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2018.1525281

37. Pineda P., Celis J., Rangel L. The worldwide spread of peace education: discursive patterns in publications and international organisations. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2019; 17 (5): 638–657. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1665988

38. Logan H., Cumming T., Wong S. Sustaining the work‑related wellbeing of early childhood educators: perspectives from key stakeholders in early childhood organisations. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2020; 52 (1): 95–113. DOI: 10.1007/s13158-020-00264-6

39. Pizmony-Levy O. Compare globally, interpret locally: International assessments and news media in Israel. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2018; 16 (5): 577–595. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2018.1531236

40. Guizzardi G., Wagner G., de Almeida Falbo R., Guizzardi R. S., Almeida J. P. Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: International Conference on Conceptual. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013; 327–341. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_27

41. Rutkowski D., Rutkowski L., Plucker J. A. Trends in education excellence gaps: A 12-year international perspective via the multilevel model for change. High Ability Studies. 2012; 23 (2): 143–166. DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2012.735414

42. Kautz T., Heckman J. J., Diris R., Ter Weel B., Borghans, L. Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success. 2014. No. w20749. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: 10.3386/w20749

43. Schultz T. W. Human capital: Policy issues and research opportunities. In: Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect [Internet]. Vol. 6. Human resources. NBER; 1972 [cited 2021 July 01]. p. 1–84. Available from: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4126

44. Lange O. On the economic theory of socialism: Part one. The Review of Economic Studies. 1936; 4 (1): 53–71. DOI: 10.2307/2967660

45. Asmolov A. G., Guseltseva M. S. Generation of opportunities: from human capital to human potential. Obrazovatel’naya politika = Educational Policy [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Apr 10]; 4 (80). Available from: https://edpolicy.ru/opportunity-generation (In Russ.)

46. Kergroach S. Industry 4.0: New challenges and opportunities for the labour market. Foresight and STI Governance. 2017; 11 (4): 6–8. DOI: 10.17323/2500-2597.2017.4.6.8

47. Ivancheva M. P., et al. Conflicting logics of online higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2020; 4 (5): 608–625. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2020.1784707

48. Muravyeva A. A., Oleynikova O. N. Educational paradigm transformation in the context of green economy. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2016; 1 (8): 23–37. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2016-8-23-37 (In Russ.)

49. Odhiambo G., Hii A. Key stakeholders’ perceptions of effective school leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2012; 40 (2): 232–247. DOI: 10.1177/1741143211432412

50. Blinov V. I., Satdykov A. I., Osadcheva S. A., Krasovsky N. A. Advance vocational training: The formation of backbone components. Educational Policy. 2020; 4 (84). DOI: 10.22394 / 2078-838X-2020-4-84-93 (In Russ.)

51. Janmaat G., McCowan T., Rao N. Different stakeholders in education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2016; 46 (2): 169–171. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2016.1134956

52. Manos M. A. Opt to take an active role in your child’s education. National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 July 01]; 89 (1). Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/235184791?accountid=45451

53. Harold W. Kohl III, Heather D. Cook. Physical activity and physical education: Relationship to growth, development, and health. In: Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school [Internet]. US: National Academies Press; 2013 [cited 2021 July 01]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201497/

54. Dikilitaş K., Mumford S. E. Teacher autonomy development through reading teacher research: Agency, motivation and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 2019; 13 (3): 253–266. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2018.1442471

55. Smith R., Kuchah K., Lamb M. Learner autonomy in developing countries. In: Autonomy in language learning and teaching [Internet]. London: Palgrave Pivot; 2018 [cited 2021 July 01]. p. 7–27. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-52998-5_2