meaning quality of education

• IIEP Buenos Aires

• A global institute
• Governing Board
• Expert directory
• 60th anniversary
• Monitoring and evaluation

Latest news

• Upcoming events
• PlanED: The IIEP podcast
• Partnering with IIEP
• Career opportunities
• 11th Medium-Term Strategy
• Planning and management to improve learning
• Inclusion in education
• Using digital tools to promote transparency and accountability
• Ethics and corruption in education
• Digital technology to transform education
• Crisis-sensitive educational planning
• Rethinking national school calendars for climate-resilient learning
• Skills for the future
• Interactive map
• Foundations of education sector planning programmes
• Online specialized courses
• Customized, on-demand training
• Training in Buenos Aires
• Training in Dakar
• Preparation of strategic plans
• Sector diagnosis
• Costs and financing of education
• Tools for planning
• Crisis-sensitive education planning
• Supporting training centres
• Support for basic education quality management
• Gender at the Centre
• Teacher careers
• Geospatial data
• Cities and Education 2030
• Learning assessment data
• Governance and quality assurance
• School grants
• Early childhood education
• Flexible learning pathways in higher education
• Instructional leaders
• Planning for teachers in times of crisis and displacement
• Planning to fulfil the right to education
• Thematic resource portals
• Policy Fora
• Network of Education Policy Specialists in Latin America
• Publications
• Briefs, Papers, Tools
• Search the collection
• Visitors information
• Planipolis (Education plans and policies)
• IIEP Learning Portal
• Ethics and corruption ETICO Platform
• PEFOP (Vocational Training in Africa)
• SITEAL (Latin America)
• Policy toolbox
• Education for safety, resilience and social cohesion
• Health and Education Resource Centre
• Interactive Map
• Search deploy
• The institute

Defining and measuring the quality of education

Strategic_seminar1.jpg.

What is the quality of education? What are the most important aspects of quality and how can they be measured?

These questions have been raised for a long time and are still widely debated. The current understanding of education quality has considerably benefitted from the conceptual work undertaken through national and international initiatives to assess learning achievement. These provide valuable feedback to policy-makers on the competencies mastered by pupils and youths, and the factors which explain these. But there is also a growing awareness of the importance of values and behaviours, although these are more difficult to measure.  

To address these concerns, IIEP organized (on 15 December 2011) a Strategic Debate on “Defining and measuring the quality of education: Is there an emerging consensus?” The topic was approached from the point of view of two cross-national surveys: the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ)*.

Assessing the creativity of students

“Students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and apply this creatively in novel situations is more important than what the students know”, said Andreas Schleicher, Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division at the Directorate for Education, OECD, and in charge of PISA. This concept is reflected in current developments taking place in workplaces in many countries, which increasingly require non-routine interactive skills. When comparing the results obtained in different countries, PISA’s experience has shown that “education systems can creatively combine the equity and quality agenda in education”, Schleicher said. Contrary to conventional wisdom, countries can be both high-average performers in PISA while demonstrating low individual and institutional variance in students’ achievement. Finally, Schleicher emphasized that investment in education is not the only determining factor for quality, since good and consistent implementation of educational policy is also very important.

The importance of cross-national cooperation

When reviewing the experience of SACMEQ, Mioko Saito, Head a.i of the IIEP Equity, Access and Quality Unit (technically supporting the SACMEQ implementation in collaboration with SACMEQ Coordinating Centre), explained how the notion of educational quality has significantly evolved in the southern and eastern African region and became a priority over the past decades. Since 1995, SACMEQ has, on a regular basis, initiated cross-national assessments on the quality of education, and each member country has benefited considerably from this cooperation. It helped them embracing new assessment areas (such as HIV and AIDS knowledge) and units of analysis (teachers, as well as pupils) to produce evidence on what pupils and teachers know and master, said Saito. She concluded by stressing that SACMEQ also has a major capacity development mission and is concerned with having research results bear on policy decisions.  

The debate following the presentations focused on the crucial role of the media in stimulating public debate on the results of cross-national tests such as PISA and SACMEQ. It was also emphasized that more collaboration among the different cross-national mechanisms for the assessment of learner achievement would be beneficial. If more items were shared among the networks, more light could be shed on the international comparability of educational outcomes.

* PISA assesses the acquisition of key competencies for adult life of 15-year-olds in mathematics, reading, and science in OECD countries. SACMEQ focuses on achievements of Grade 6 pupils. Created in 1995, SACMEQ is a network of 15 southern and eastern African ministries of education: Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (Mainland), Tanzania (Zanzibar), Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

• Join our new series of Strategic Debates! 30 May 2024
• Q&A: Transforming education in Liberia 30 May 2024
• Leading for change: Q&A with chief of education planning from Saint Kitts and Nevis 28 May 2024
• PISA Website
• Andreas Schleicher's presentation pdf, 2.3 Mo
• Mioko Saito's presentation pdf, 1.6 Mo

• Privacy Notice

What do we mean by Quality Education?

Back in September 2015, world leaders adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , one of which focuses solely on quality education. Goal 4 seeks to ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning—a goal Wellspring’s work is centred around.

​​For Wellspring, quality education is this and more. Quality education empowers children to be who God created them to be. It places children at the center of their learning and sees them treated with dignity and worth. It sees that each child has God-given potential, and it helps them step into their unique giftings to reach it. Quality education gives every child the opportunity to thrive. It is inclusive , and ensures they every child has the resources, attention, and focus they need to effectively learn. The provision of quality education gives students the space to dream about their future, and the tools to make them come true as a result.

The provision of quality education depends on each member of the education ecosystem playing their unique role—whether a parent helping with homework, a teacher giving a student their one-on-one attention, or a school leader casting vision for their school.

When students access quality education, they’re equipped with the knowledge and character to impact their lives, community and the world.

Other Foundational Pieces

We are sharing these Foundational Pieces to help you learn more about who we are and what we do.

What Are Some of the Current Challenges in Quality Education?

What are Barriers to Girls’ Education?

Why Does Education Matter?

About . Click to expand section.

• Our History
• Team & Board
• Transparency and Accountability

What We Do . Click to expand section.

• Cycle of Poverty
• Climate & Environment
• Emergencies & Refugees
• Health & Nutrition
• Livelihoods
• Gender Equality
• Where We Work

Take Action . Click to expand section.

• Attend an Event
• Partner With Us
• Fundraise for Concern
• Work With Us
• Leadership Giving
• Humanitarian Training
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Donate . Click to expand section.

• Give Monthly
• Donate in Honor or Memory
• Leave a Legacy
• DAFs, IRAs, Trusts, & Stocks
• Employee Giving

What does Quality Education mean?

Breaking down Sustainable Development Goal #4

Aug 31, 2023

Education is essential for ending poverty . Actually, let's rephrase that: quality education is essential for ending poverty.

The word “quality” carries a lot of meanings—and even baggage. Especially in the US, where school rankings can be a stressful topic for both parents and students. In our work, however, quality means something very different, and very specific. This is especially true in countries where education is most under threat, and why Quality Education is one of the UN’s top Sustainable Development Goals . Read on to learn more. 

The UN defines its fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) is “to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” 

Education is important, and many areas of the world lack access to free pre-primary, primary, and secondary education — not to mention affordable options for technical, vocational, and university studies. But it’s not enough for education to be accessible. It also has to add value to the lives of the children and young adults attending school. School enrollment in Niger had gone up for primary students pre-pandemic. However, many of these students were graduating school without mastering basic skills like literacy and numeracy.

Stay in the know on our work in education

Why quality education matters.

Education can help young people break an intergenerational cycle of poverty . But this is only possible if education is approached in a meaningful way. In 2012, the UN’s former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said:

“Education is about more than literacy and numeracy — it is also about citizenry. Education must fully assume its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful and tolerant societies.” 

This is what we mean by “quality” education: We need a standard to measure how effective an education is in order to set students up for success in the rest of their lives. 

How we measure Quality Education

The UN has outlined several targets within their larger education-related SDG that help us to set a standard of quality. 

1. Building relevant skills for financial success

Extreme poverty is a lack of assets or a lack of return on those assets. One of these assets are skills, including technical and vocational skills. The more relevant these skills are in the 21st Century, the more likely they are to generate a return. This not only means understanding how relevant skills have changed against the digital revolution and automation, but also against climate change, shifting societal norms, and political realities. 

2. Eliminating discrimination in education

Education is a fundamental human right. However, there are 244 million children around the world who aren’t in the classroom. Many of them are excluded due to some form of discrimination. Girls’ education is particularly under threat here, with over 129 million girls missing out on a basic human right. Quality Education means equality in education — at all levels. 

3. Universal literacy and numeracy

According to UNESCO, if all adults had just literacy and numeracy skills, an estimated 171 million people could escape extreme poverty . However, UNESCO also estimates that  there are 781 million illiterate adults around the globe. Many of these adults have completed several years of education but remain unable to read or count due to different barriers.

6 Benefits of literacy in the fight against poverty

"The future starts with the alphabet." Here are 6 benefits of literacy as a tool for breaking the cycle of poverty.

4. Inclusive and safe schools

Environment is crucial to fostering a quality education. This means building and upgrading schools that are child-friendly, disability- and gender-sensitive, and provide safe, nonviolent, and inclusive spaces for kids to learn — and to enjoy being kids. Unfortunately, both physical and psychological aggression and gender biases are still prevalent in far too many schools. 

5. Qualified teachers

One of the UN’s other main goals around education is to increase the number of qualified teachers — especially in low-income countries and remote areas around the world. While many teachers receive some form of training, it’s not always in line with the best education models, nor is it always tailored to teaching in fragile contexts. 

How Concern supports Quality Education

Concern’s work in primary education is grounded in the belief that all children have a right to learn. We believe that education is one of the best routes out of poverty and integrate it into both our development and emergency work to give children living in extreme poverty more opportunities in life and an overall sense of well-being. 

Supporting Syrian students and teachers in Lebanon and Türkiye

We’ve worked with displaced Syrian teachers, as well as local teachers in Turkish and Lebanese host communities, to develop formal and informal learning programs that support children who have been traumatized by war and displacement. We’ve also worked with Syrian adults to build relevant income-generating skills that they can use in their host communities as well as, eventually, when they return home to a country that will need help rebuilding its infrastructure, economy, and communities.

Helping girls succeed in Kenya and Malawi

Project Profile

Right to Learn

An example of finding the right partners to go even further, this education program in Malawi improved gender equality in the classroom.

In an effort to build gender equality in educational systems around the world, we’ve created programs that support retention rates from primary to secondary schools for girls in Kenya and Malawi . In Malawi, we’ve also supported community groups to prevent harmful traditions like child marriage from interrupting education (for boys and girls). Community groups like a local Village Savings and Loan Association in Kenya’s Chalbi Desert have also taken it upon themselves to financially support local girls through their primary and secondary schooling. 

Breaking language barriers in Haiti and Niger

Language barriers in the classroom: From mother tongue to national language

Learn more about how Concern programs have helped students overcome language barriers in classrooms in Haiti and Kenya.

We’ve addressed language barriers in the classroom in countries like Kenya, Niger and Haiti , where local communities often speak languages other than the national tongues (which, in and of themselves, are holdovers of colonial rule). This method is in line with UNESCO’s recommendation for early teaching in the mother tongue and gradually transitioning. 

Creating safe learning environments in Sierra Leone

Concern is working to address school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV) to align quality with equality. In Sierra Leone, our Irish Aid-funded, multi-million-dollar, five-year learning program, the Safe Learning Model, developed a holistic approach to education in the Tonkolili District, addressing SRGBV in the larger community context and creating a model that can be adapted for other countries and settings. 

Support Concern's work

More on Quality Education

11 Unexpected barriers to education around the world

Four ways that girls’ education can change the world

Child marriage and education: The blackboard wins over the bridal altar

Sign up for our newsletter.

Get emails with stories from around the world.

You can change your preferences at any time. By subscribing, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Search results:

• Afghanistan
• American Samoa
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• British Virgin Islands
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Cayman Islands
• Central African Republic
• Channel Islands
• China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
• China, Macao Special Administrative Region
• China, Taiwan Province of China
• Cook Islands
• Côte d'Ivoire
• Democratic People's Republic of Korea
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea
• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
• Faroe Islands
• French Guiana
• French Polynesia
• Guinea-Bissau
• Humanitarian Action Countries
• Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Isle of Man
• Kosovo (UNSCR 1244)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Liechtenstein
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia (Federated States of)
• Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• North Macedonia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• OECD Fragile Contexts
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Republic of Korea
• Republic of Moldova
• Russian Federation
• Saint Barthélemy
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Martin (French part)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• Sint Maarten
• Solomon Islands
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• State of Palestine
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Timor-Leste
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turkmenistan
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United Republic of Tanzania
• United States
• Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
• Virgin Islands U.S.
• Wallis and Futuna

Search countries

Search for data in 238 countries

• SDG Progress Data
• Child Marriage
• Immunization
• Benchmarking child-related SDGs
• Maternal and Newborn Health Disparities
• Continuity of essential health services
• Country profiles
• Interactive data visualizations
• Journal articles
• Publications
• Data Warehouse

GOAL 4: QUALITY EDUCATION

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.  This goal supports the reduction of disparities and inequities in education, both in terms of access and quality. It recognizes the need to provide quality education for all, and most especially vulnerable populations, including poor children, children living in rural areas, persons with disabilities, indigenous people and refugee children.

This goal is of critical importance because of its transformative effects on the other SDGs. Sustainable development hinges on every child receiving a quality education. When children are offered the tools to develop to their full potential, they become productive adults ready to give back to their communities and break the cycle of poverty. Education enables upward socioeconomic mobility.

Significant progress was achieved during the last decade in increasing access to education and school enrolment rates at all levels, particularly for girls. Despite these gains, about 260 million children were out of school in 2018, nearly one fifth of the global population in that age group. Furthermore, more than half of all children and adolescents worldwide are failing to meet minimum proficiency standards in reading and mathematics.

UNICEF’s contribution towards reaching this goal centres on equity and inclusion to provide all children with quality learning opportunities and skills development programmes, from early childhood through adolescence. UNICEF works with governments worldwide to raise the quality and inclusiveness of schools.  

UNICEF is custodian for global monitoring of Indicator 4.2.1 Percentage of children (aged 24–59 months) developmentally on track in at least 3 of the 4 following domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, socio-emotional and learning.

Child-related SDG indicators

Target 4.1 by 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex

• Indicator definition
• Computation method
• Comments & limitations

Explore the data

The indicator aims to measure the percentage of children and young people who have achieved the minimum learning outcomes in reading and mathematics during or at the end of the relevant stages of education.

The higher the figure, the higher the proportion of children and/or young people reaching at least minimum proficiency in the respective domain (reading or mathematic) with the limitations indicated under the “Comments and limitations” section.

The indicator is also a direct measure of the learning outcomes achieved in the two subject areas at the end of the relevant stages of education. The three measurement points will have their own established minimum standard. There is only one threshold that divides students into above and below minimum:

Below minimum refers to the proportion or percentage of students who do not achieve a minimum standard as set up by countries according to the globally-defined minimum competencies.

Above minimum refers to the proportion or percentage of students who have achieved the minimum standards. Due to heterogeneity of performance levels set by national and cross-national assessments, these performance levels will have to be mapped to the globally-defined minimum performance levels. Once the performance levels are mapped, the global education community will be able to identify for each country the proportion or percentage of children who achieved minimum standards.

(a) Minimum proficiency level (MPL) is the benchmark of basic knowledge in a domain (mathematics, reading, etc.) measured through learning assessments. In September 2018, an agreement was reached on a verbal definition of the global minimum proficiency level of reference for each of the areas and domains of Indicator 4.1.1 as described in the document entitled: Minimum Proficiency Levels (MPLs): Outcomes of the consensus building meeting ( http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/MPLs_revised_doc_20190204.docx ).

Minimum proficiency levels (MPLs) defined by each learning assessment to ensure comparability across learning assessments; a verbal definition of MPL for each domain and levels between cross-national assessments (CNAs) were established by conducting an analysis of the performance level descriptors, the descriptions of the performance levels to express the knowledge and skills required to achieve each performance level by domain, of cross-national, regional and community-led tests in reading and mathematics. The analysis was led and completed by the UIS and a consensus among experts on the proposed methodology was deemed adequate and pragmatic.

The global MPL definitions for the domains of reading and mathematics are presented here (insert link)

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading test has six proficiency levels, of which Level 2 is described as the minimum proficiency level. In Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), there are four proficiency levels: Low, Intermediate, High and Advanced. Students reaching the Intermediate benchmark are able to apply basic knowledge in a variety of situations, similar to the idea of minimum proficiency. Currently, there are no common standards validated by the international community or countries. The indicator shows data published by each of the agencies and organizations specialised in cross-national learning assessments.

(a) The number of children and/or young people at the relevant stage of education n in year t achieving at least the pre-defined proficiency level in subject s expressed as a percentage of the number of children and/or young people at stage of education n, in year t, in any proficiency level in subjects.

Harmonize various data sources To address the challenges posed by the limited capacity of some countries to implement cross- national, regional and national assessments, actions have been taken by the UIS and its partners. The strategies are used according to its level of precision and following a reporting protocol ( http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/GAML6-WD-2-Protocol-for-reporting-4.1.1_v1.pdf ) that includes the national assessments under specific circumstances.

Out-of-school children In 2016, 263 million children, adolescents and youth were out of school, representing nearly one-fifth of the global population of this age group. 63 million, or 24% of the total, are children of primary school age (typically 6 to 11 years old); 61 million, or 23% of the total, are adolescents of lower secondary school age (typically 12 to 14 years old); and 139 million, or 53% of the total, are youth of upper secondary school age (about 15 to 17 years old). Not all these kids will be permanently outside school, some will re-join the educational system and, eventually, complete late, while some of them will enter late. The quantity varies per country and region and demands some adjustment in the estimate of Indicator 4.1.1. There is currently a discussion on how to implement these adjustments to reflect all the population. In 2017, the UIS proposed to make adjustments using the out-of-school children and the completion rates.( http://uis.unesco.org/en/blog/helping-countries-improve-their-data-out-school-children ) and the completion rates.

Learning outcomes from cross-national learning assessment are directly comparable for all countries which participated in the same cross-national learning assessments. However, these outcomes are not comparable across different cross-national learning assessments or with national learning assessments. A level of comparability of learning outcomes across assessments could be achieved by using different methodologies, each with varying standard errors. The period of 2020-2021 will shed light on the standard errors’ size for these methodologies.

The comparability of learning outcomes over time has additional complications, which require, ideally, to design and implement a set of comparable items as anchors in advance. Methodological developments are underway to address comparability of assessments outcomes over time.

While data from many national assessments are available now, every country sets its own standards so the performance levels might not be comparable. One option is to link existing regional assessments based on a common framework. Furthermore, assessments are typically administered within school systems, the current indicators cover only those in school and the proportion of in-school target populations might vary from country to country due to varied out-of-school children populations. Assessing competencies of children and young people who are out of school would require household-based surveys. Assessing children in households is under consideration but may be very costly and difficult to administer and unlikely to be available on the scale needed within the next 3-5 years. Finally, the calculation of this indicator requires specific information on the ages of children participating in assessments to create globally-comparable data. The ages of children reported by the head of the household might not be consistent and reliable so the calculation of the indicator may be even more challenging. Due to the complication in assessing out-of-school children and the main focus on improving education system, the UIS is taking a stepping stone approach. It will concentrate on assessing children in school in the medium term, where much data are available, then develop more coherent implementation plan to assess out-of-school children in the longer term.

Click on the button below to explore the data behind this indicator.

Completion rate (primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education)

A completion rate of 100% indicates that all children and adolescents have completed a level of education by the time they are 3 to 5 years older than the official age of entry into the last grade of that level of education. A low completion rate indicates low or delayed entry into a given level of education, high drop-out, high repetition, late completion, or a combination of these factors.

Percentage of a cohort of children or young people aged 3-5 years above the intended age for the last grade of each level of education who have completed that grade.

The intended age for the last grade of each level of education is the age at which pupils would enter the grade if they had started school at the official primary entrance age, had studied full-time and had progressed without repeating or skipping a grade.

For example, if the official age of entry into primary education is 6 years, and if primary education has 6 grades, the intended age for the last grade of primary education is 11 years. In this case, 14-16 years (11 + 3 = 14 and 11 + 5 = 16) would be the reference age group for calculation of the primary completion rate.

The number of persons in the relevant age group who have completed the last grade of a given level of education is divided by the total population (in the survey sample) of the same age group.

The age group 3-5 years above the official age of entry into the last grade for a given level of education was selected for the calculation of the completion rate to allow for some delayed entry or repetition. In countries where entry can occur very late or where repetition is common, some children or adolescents in the age group examined may still attend school and the eventual rate of completion may therefore be underestimated.

The indicator is calculated from household survey data and is subject to time lag in the availability of data. When multiple surveys are available, they may provide conflicting information due to the possible presence of sampling and non-sampling errors in survey data. The Technical Cooperation Group on the Indicators for SDG 4 – Education 2030 (TCG) has requested a refinement of the methodology to model completion rate estimates, following an approach similar to that used for the estimation of child mortality rates. The model would ensure that common challenges with household survey data, such as timeliness and sampling or non-sampling errors are addressed to provide up-to-date and more robust data.

TARGET 4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

Proportion of children aged 24-59 months of age who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex.

Early childhood development (ECD) sets the stage for life-long thriving. Investing in ECD is one of the most critical and cost-effective investments a country can make to improve adult health, education and productivity in order to build human capital and promote sustainable development. ECD is equity from the start and provides a good indication of national development. Efforts to improve ECD can bring about human, social and economic improvements for both individuals and societies.

The recommended measure for SDG 4.2.1 is the Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI2030) which is a 20-item instrument to measure developmental outcomes among children aged 24 to 59 months in population-based surveys. The indicator derived from the ECDI2030 is the proportion of children aged 24 to 59 months who have achieved the minimum number of milestones expected for their age group, defined as follows:

– Children age 24 to 29 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 7 milestones – Children age 30 to 35 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 9 milestones – Children age 36 to 41 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 11 milestones – Children age 42 to 47 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 13 milestones – Children age 48 to 59 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 15 milestones

SDG indicator 4.2.1 is intended to capture the multidimensional and holistic nature of early childhood development. For this reason, the indicator is not intended to be disaggregated by domains since development in all areas (health, learning and psychosocial wellbeing) are interconnected and overlapping, particularly among young children. The indicator is intended to produce a single summary score to indicate the proportion of children considered to be developmentally on track.

The domains included in the indicator for SDG indicator 4.2.1 include the following concepts:

Health: gross motor development, fine motor development and self-care Learning: expressive language, literacy, numeracy, pre-writing, and executive functioning Psychosocial well-being: emotional skills, social skills, internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior

The number of children aged 24 to 59 months who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being divided by the total number of children aged 24 to 59 months in the population multiplied by 100.

SDG 4.2.1 was initially classified as Tier 3 and was upgraded to Tier 2 in 2019; additionally, changes to the indicator were made during the 2020 comprehensive review. In light of this and given that the ECDI2030 was officially released in March 2020, it will take some time for country uptake and implementation of the new measure and for data to become available from a sufficiently large enough number of countries. Therefore, in the meantime, a proxy indicator (children aged 36-59 months who are developmentally ontrack in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional and learning) will be used to report on 4.2.1, when relevant. This proxy indicator has been used for global SDG reporting since 2015 but is not fully aligned with the definition and age group covered by the SDG indicator formulation. When the proxy indicator is used for SDG reporting on 4.2.1 for a country, it will be footnoted as such in the global SDG database.

Click on the button below to explore the data behind this indicator’s proxy; Children aged 36-59 months who are developmentally ontrack in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional and learning . For more information about this proxy indicator, please see “Comments and Limitations”

Adjusted net attendance rate, one year before the official primary entry age

The indicator measures children’s exposure to organized learning activities in the year prior to the official age to start of primary school as a representation of access to quality early childhood care and pre-primary education. One year prior to the start of primary school is selected for international comparison. A high value of the indicator shows a high degree of participation in organized learning immediately before the official entrance age to primary education.

The participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex as defined as the percentage of children in the given age range who participate in one or more organized learning programme, including programmes which offer a combination of education and care. Participation in early childhood and in primary education are both included. The age range will vary by country depending on the official age for entry to primary education.

An organized learning programme is one which consists of a coherent set or sequence of educational activities designed with the intention of achieving pre-determined learning outcomes or the accomplishment of a specific set of educational tasks. Early childhood and primary education programmes are examples of organized learning programmes.

Early childhood and primary education are defined in the 2011 revision of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011). Early childhood education is typically designed with a holistic approach to support children’s early cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and to introduce young children to organized instruction outside the family context. Primary education offers learning and educational activities designed to provide students with fundamental skills in reading, writing and mathematics and establish a solid foundation for learning and understanding core areas of knowledge and personal development. It focuses on learning at a basic level of complexity with little, if any, specialisation.

The official primary entry age is the age at which children are obliged to start primary education according to national legislation or policies. Where more than one age is specified, for example, in different parts of a country, the most common official entry age (i.e. the age at which most children in the country are expected to start primary) is used for the calculation of this indicator at the global level.

The number of children in the relevant age group who participate in an organized learning programme is expressed as a percentage of the total population in the same age range. From household surveys, both enrolments and population are collected at the same time.

Participation in learning programmes in the early years is not full time for many children, meaning that exposure to learning environments outside of the home will vary in intensity. The indicator measures the percentage of children who are exposed to organized learning but not the intensity of the programme, which limits the ability to draw conclusions on the extent to which this target is being achieved. More work is needed to ensure that the definition of learning programmes is consistent across various surveys and defined in a manner that is easily understood by survey respondents, ideally with complementary information collected on the amount of time children spend in learning programmes.

TARGET 4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service.

This indicator measures the presence of basic services and facilities in school that are necessary to ensure a safe and effective learning environment for all students. A high value indicates that schools have good access to the relevant services and facilities. Ideally each school should have access to all these services and facilities.

The percentage of schools by level of education (primary education) with access to the given facility or service

Electricity: Regularly and readily available sources of power (e.g. grid/mains connection, wind, water, solar and fuel-powered generator, etc.) that enable the adequate and sustainable use of ICT infrastructure for educational purposes.

Internet for pedagogical purposes: Internet that is available for enhancing teaching and learning and is accessible by pupils. Internet is defined as a worldwide interconnected computer network, which provides pupils access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (i.e. not assumed to be only via a computer) and thus can also be accessed by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed narrowband, fixed broadband, or via mobile network.

Computers for pedagogical use: Use of computers to support course delivery or independent teaching and learning needs. This may include activities using computers or the Internet to meet information needs for research purposes; develop presentations; perform hands-on exercises and experiments; share information; and participate in online discussion forums for educational purposes. A computer is a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve and process data, as well as share information in a highly-structured manner. It performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations according to a set of instructions or algorithms.

Computers include the following types: -A desktop computer usually remains fixed in one place; normally the user is placed in front of it, behind the keyboard; – A laptop computer is small enough to carry and usually enables the same tasks as a desktop computer; it includes notebooks and netbooks but does not include tablets and similar handheld devices; and – A tablet (or similar handheld computer) is a computer that is integrated into a flat touch screen, operated by touching the screen rather than using a physical keyboard.

Adapted infrastructure is defined as any built environment related to education facilities that are accessible to all users, including those with different types of disability, to be able to gain access to use and exit from them. Accessibility includes ease of independent approach, entry, evacuation and/or use of a building and its services and facilities (such as water and sanitation), by all of the building’s potential users with an assurance of individual health, safety and welfare during the course of those activities.

Adapted materials include learning materials and assistive products that enable students and teachers with disabilities/functioning limitations to access learning and to participate fully in the school environment.

Accessible learning materials include textbooks, instructional materials, assessments and other materials that are available and provided in appropriate formats such as audio, braille, sign language and simplified formats that can be used by students and teachers with disabilities/functioning limitations.

Basic drinking water is defined as a functional drinking water source (MDG ‘improved’ categories) on or near the premises and water points accessible to all users during school hours.

Basic sanitation facilities are defined as functional sanitation facilities (MDG ‘improved’ categories) separated for males and females on or near the premises.

Basic handwashing facilities are defined as functional handwashing facilities, with soap and water available to all girls and boys.

The number of schools in a given level of education with access to the relevant facilities is expressed as a percentage of all schools at that level of education.

The indicator measures the existence in schools of the given service or facility but not its quality or operational state.

For every child to learn, UNICEF has eight key asks of governments:

• A demonstration of how the SDG 4 global ambitions are being nationalized into plans, policies, budgets, data collection efforts and reports.
• A renewed commitment to education to recover learning losses and manage impacts of COVID-19.
• The implementation and scaling of digital learning solutions and innovations to reimagine education.
• Attention to skills development should be a core component to education.
• Focus to provide quality education to the most vulnerable – including girls, children affected by conflict and crisis, children with disabilities, refugees and displaced children.
• A continued commitment to improving access to pre-primary, primary and secondary education for all, including for children from minority groups and those with disabilities.
• A renewed focus on learning outcomes and their enablers, including learning in safe and adequate environments, support by well-trained teachers and structured content.
• The implementation of SDG-focused learning throughout schools to raise awareness and inspire positive action.

Learn more about  UNICEF’s key asks for implementing Goal 4

See more Sustainable Development Goals

ZERO HUNGER

GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

QUALITY EDUCATION

GENDER EQUALITY

CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION

AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY

DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

REDUCED INEQUALITIES

CLIMATE ACTION

PEACE, JUSTICE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS

What makes a quality education?

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Claire Boonstra

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Sustainable Development is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, sustainable development.

What constitutes a quality education? Today, quality is most often measured through the OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) standardized tests – and countries are ranked accordingly. The higher on that list, the better your education would be. But do these results and rankings still relate to what really matters today – and tomorrow?

At first glance, the relationship between PISA and economic performance doesn’t seem too hard to pinpoint. Correlations between high PISA rankings and “hard” variables such as GDP, performance, productivity – these are easy enough to draw up. But if we agree that the success of modern-day economies is based on more than children’s ability to read, write and do maths, what other variables might we draw up and how might we assess their presence? If we also agree that societies are more than just their economic performance, what of instruments such as GDP and PISA?

Preparing children for life

The rapid changes we’re experiencing in our societies are having a substantial impact on the likelihood that our children will find a satisfying path when they are older. Our life expectancies are rising dramatically. Rather than pinpointing the single role they’ll play, children may have to prepare for a series of roles, more so than we have so far been used to.

The meaningful discussion I believe we should engage in thus goes beyond the mere necessity of finding a job. Should an education prepare us for a single job to last our entire career, or might it take into account the sequence of professional roles that is becoming more commonplace?

Does one mould fit all?

Each developing child passes through our school system to reach their full potential as an adult in society. The current version of our education system requires each child to be measured against the same standards. We must all fit these particular norms, fit that particular mould, strive to meet those specific criteria. Are we not wasting an awful amount of potential and harming both ourselves and society? Wouldn’t developing the full and infinite potential of each person be the preferable route to take, for each individual as well as humanity? What if we could use all our existing knowledge on learning and developments in technology to find a solution that matches the natural diversity in talents with the infinite array of different roles?

Artificial employees

We are entering an age where computers, robots and artificial intelligence will start to outperform humans in skills we score children against today: computation, applied writing, organization and assembly, rote memorization, decision-tree-based problem solving. Replacing humans in such jobs makes as much economic sense as the replacement of horses by cars once did. In healthcare, in retail, in the services industry, this is already happening and there is every reason to believe it will continue.

Roles likely to avoid such robotization for some time yet are those that revolve around the precise traits that make us unmistakably human: inventiveness, creativity, empathy, entrepreneurialism, intuition, lateral thinking, cultural sensitivity, to name a few. What if we gave these more emphasis in schools? Who is going to programme the robots?

Policy changes vs. fundamental review

Changes at the policy level are a constant for our schools and our teachers are right to sigh at yet another shift. Changes in recent years seem to have been mostly directed at the what and the how of education, rather than the more fundamental question: what is it for? That is the broad, deep and fundamental discussion I would very much like to see happening: what should be the purpose of our education, if a substantial portion of our children will soon have more than 100 years to spend in societies that are changing rapidly?

It’s up to each of us to find our own answers to these questions: individuals, schools and also governments, in creating the wider conditions for their citizens. There may be no correct or ideal answers, just like there are no ‘ideal’ political standpoints. But we must try to answer them, to determine a course for the compass.

Five attempts at an answer

After several years of asking these questions in various national and international forums, I’ve come to the conclusion that education has five key goals:

• To unleash the infinite potential of humanity. A substantial potential remains unused in people, simply because current curricula and testing bodies lack the means to address it. Imagine the benefits of an education system that helps students reach their full potential? Imagine the effect such students might have on our societies?
• To learn how to apply oneself as an instrument towards lifelong value. Post-war generations went to work where they could. In contrast, recent generations have learned to do what they enjoy. Bridging the two tendencies, we might teach children how they matter and impart a sense of self-appreciation in a societal context. Ask them what are their core strengths, their talents and interests, and how they will put these to use for society?
• To learn how to shape the future. Rather than preparing children for the future – which is rather passive and arguably impossible to do, as we don’t know how history will develop – we might teach children how they may have an influence on society; how they may shape, design, develop, articulate, make and programme ideas and things.
• To understand and master the conditions for peace. Conflict resolution, clear interpersonal communications, empathy and intercultural understanding may well be crucial traits of our societies if they are to stay liveable, both in the context of our increasingly culturally diverse societies as well as the everyday school and work environment.
• To learn how to be healthy and happy. Taking proper care of one’s body and discovering the drivers of one’s general well-being are essential skills to succeed at life. Schools might help students find a good balance between effort, exercise and relaxation, and to define their personal priorities in life.

This is not a debate for politicians and civil servants alone. Every single one of us is a decision-maker when it comes to education. None of us should debate how a quality education is best provided to children or how such quality is best assessed if we haven’t first asked ourselves: what is quality education in the first place?

Have you read? 5 reasons why we need to reduce global inequality Why gender equality will make or break the Global Goals

Author: Claire Boonstra is the co-founder of tech start-ups, founder of Operation Education and a Young Global Leader

Guest editor of this series is Owen Gaffney, Director, International Media and Strategy, Stockholm Resilience Centre and Future Earth

Image: Children sit inside a classroom on their first day of school at Shimizu elementary school in Fukushima, northern Japan April 6, 2011. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Share this:

• Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Sustainable Development .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Biophilia is the new travel trend – this is why it matters

Michelle Meineke

May 29, 2024

Why small island states need scaled finance and amplified action

Jorge Moreira da Silva

What is needed for inclusive and sustainable global economic growth? Four leaders share their thoughts 

Liam Coleman

May 24, 2024

Translating Critical Raw Material Trade into Development Benefits

Tourism is bouncing back - but can we make travel sustainable?

Robin Pomeroy and Sophia Akram

May 23, 2024

Protecting the magic of travel - and local economies

Topaz Smith

May 21, 2024

Search the United Nations

• UNAI Principles
• Map of UNAI Members
• List of UNAI Members
• Special Series
• Select UN Events
• UNAI Events
• SDGs Best Practices
• SDGs Guidelines
• SDGs Training Sessions
• SDGs Workshops
• The Why Join Guide
• Tools for Researchers
• Bulletin Board
• Submit the 2024 Activity Report
• Become a Millennium Fellow
• UNAI Voices
• Sustainable Development Goals
• UN Agencies
• UN Information Centres
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Stories Archive
• UN Publications
• Internships

Quality Education

Obtaining a quality education is the foundation to improving people’s lives and sustainable development. Major progress has been made towards increasing access to education at all levels and increasing enrolment rates in schools particularly for women and girls. Basic literacy skills have improved tremendously, yet bolder efforts are needed to make even greater strides for achieving universal education goals. For example, the world has achieved equality in primary education between girls and boys, but few countries have achieved that target at all levels of education.

Learn more about  SDG 4 , including facts, figures, targets and links to more information.

The Sustainable Development Goals Explained: Quality Education

Produced by the Department of Public Information

United Nations- UNICEF’s Associate Director of Education Jo Bourne talks to us about what progress has been achieved in the past 15 years on access to education, why this goal is important not just for children and young people, and how quality education benefits societies as a whole.

UNITED NATIONS

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKE ACTION

• Lazy Person's Guide
• UN Volunteers
• Youth Engagement
• Past Contests and Scholarships
• Request a Speaker
• Visit the UN

NEWS AND MEDIA

• UN News Centre
• Press Releases
• Office of the Spokesperson
• UN in Action
• UN Social Media
• The Essential UN

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

• SDG of the Month
• Observances and Commemorations
• Celebrity Advocates for the UN

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

• issue briefs
• Monitor learning

Quality and learning indicators

Understanding what quality means varies between countries. Different education actors and organizations also have their own definitions. However, most tend to agree on three broad principles: the need for relevance, for equity of access and outcome, and for proper observance of individual rights (UNESCO, 2004).

UNESCO’s framework on the variables of education quality has five dimensions:

• Learner Characteristics : including learner aptitude, perseverance, readiness for school, prior knowledge, barriers to learning, and demographic variables.
• Context : including public resources for education, parental support, national standards, labour market demands, socio-cultural and religious factors, peer effects, and time available for schooling and homework.
• Enabling Inputs : including teaching and learning materials, physical infrastructure and facilities, and human resources.
• Teaching and Learning : including learning time, teaching methods, assessment, and class size.
• Outcomes : including skills in literacy and numeracy, values, and life skills. (UNESCO, 2004: 36).

The use of indicators

For educational quality and learning outcomes to improve, planners need access to evidence-based analyses of the current situation, trends over time, and information on the strengths and weaknesses of a system, and their causes. A strong monitoring and evaluation system that looks at relevant indicators can provide that evidence. Indicators can help track the progress of strategies and programmes within an education sector plan. Indicators of education quality can have meaningful implications for policy by enabling comparisons to be made across time, within different places or contexts, or against standards or global benchmarks such as Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) .

More specifically, indicators enable educational planners and decision-makers to:

• Monitor changes in areas such as teaching quality, the curriculum, and student performance, which can alert policy-makers to impending problems.
• Measure the impact of educational reform efforts.
• Encourage an education system to improve by comparing it, or parts of it, with other countries or systems.
• Focus attention on educational subsystems that may require improvement, such as particular districts or levels of education.
• Focus attention on key equity indicators, such as the performance of different subgroups such as girls, students living in poverty, or students with disabilities. (Adapted from Kaagan and Smith, 1985: 24).

Indicators for monitoring education quality

Education systems are typically analysed in terms of context, specific inputs, social or institutional processes, and outputs or outcomes. Indicators can be developed to measure issues that fall under each of these categories.

• Context indicators : provide information on the contextual factors that affect learning, e.g. student characteristics, socio- economic conditions, cultural aspects, status of the teaching profession, and local community issues. Context indicators are often challenging to develop and measure as they concern qualitative issues. Common data-collection tools include surveys, classroom observations, inspection reports, and self-evaluations.
• Input indicators : primarily measure the deployment and use of resources to facilitate learning. They reveal whether the planned financial, material, and human resources are being delivered in the planned quantities, at all levels of the system. Information on input indicators is relatively easy to obtain since inputs are often “countable” by nature, and management processes involve keeping records of many inputs automatically. One challenge may be the differences between producing inputs and ensuring that they are available at the endpoint. For example, the textbook/pupil ratio may be measured in terms of the number of textbooks that are delivered, or by the number of textbooks in use in schools. In some cases, there may be a discrepancy between the two figures.
• Process indicators : measure how educational programme activities were conducted – whether they were carried out to the desired standard of quality. This includes how specific educational processes are conducted in practice, e.g. the application of standards, teaching quality, time on task, school climate, and educational leadership. Like context indicators, process indicators also concern qualitative issues and may be obtained through surveys and pedagogical observations, inspection reports, and self-evaluations.
• Output indicators : measure the effects of the programme activities to see whether the programme objectives were attained. They reveal how the education system is performing in terms of subject knowledge, competencies, repetition, progression and completion rates, and employer satisfaction. Output indicators may be obtained through national examinations, international assessments, surveys, and systematic field observations. Output indicators typically involve measurement of learning outcomes based on national examinations or international assessments. Output indicators provide the most important data for understanding whether educational quality and learning outcomes are improving as intended. (Adapted from: Scheerens, Luyten, and van Ravens, 2011).

Indicators should be based on context and on the specific learning goals of the education system. They should be designed to allow for measurement of change over time and be disaggregated by gender, geography, socio-economic situation, and other equity issues.

The importance of measuring equality

The importance of equality in education is emphasized in the SDGs and Education 2030 Framework, with Target 4.5 aiming to “eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations”. To achieve this, education systems must monitor and address inequalities in access, participation and outcomes for all population groups. In more equitable education systems, learners’ access to education and their learning outcomes are relatively independent of individual socio-economic and cultural circumstances.

To measure equality, planners need to be able to disaggregate assessment data by different population groups in order to track their progress. Learner characteristics that are known to have predictive effects on education outcomes and can serve as key indicators for equality measurement include:

• disability,
• forced displacement,
• immigration / migration status,
• cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity,

Collecting data on these indicators enables the aggregation of data by key equity dimensions, such as gender or poverty, and the comparison of the degree of inequality between different subgroups. To measure progress towards equity targets accurately, it is important that learning assessments be administered to disadvantaged children who do not attend school. One means of achieving this is through sample-based household surveys. Household and administrative school data can also be linked to explore the effect of variables such as facilities and teaching methods on disadvantaged learners.

Plans and policies

Pakistan.  Minimum standards for quality education in Pakistan: attaining standards for improved learning outcomes and school effectiveness  (2016)

• Sauvageot, C. 1997. Indicators for educational planning: a practical guide . Paris: IIEP.
• UNESCO-UIS. 2019. SDG 4 data digest: How to produce and use the global and thematic education indicators . Montreal: UIS

Barrett, A. M.; Sorensen, T. B. 2015. Indicators for all? Monitoring quality and equity for a broad and bold post-2015 global education agenda . New York: Open Society Foundations.

Kaagan, S.; Smith, M. S. 1985. ‘Indicators of educational quality’ . In: Educational Leadership. 43(2), 21–24.

OECD. 2013. Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment . Paris: OECD.

Scheerens, J.; Luyten, H.; van Ravens, J. 2011. ‘ Measuring educational quality by means of indicators’ . In: J. Scheerens; H. Luyten; J. van Ravens (Eds) Perspectives on educational quality: Illustrative outcomes on primary and secondary schooling in the Netherlands (pp. 35–50). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

UNESCO. 2004. ‘Understanding education quality’ . In: UNESCO, Education for all: The quality imperative (pp. 27–37). Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO-UIS. 2018. Handbook on measuring equity in education . Montreal: UIS.

Related information

• Global Alliance to Monitor Learning (GAML)
• Inter-Agency Group on Education Inequality Indicators (IAG-EII)
• Quality of education

Privacy Policy & Terms of Use

Copyright © INEE 2024

Quality education

Understanding of what "quality" means may vary between contexts, and different actors may have their own definitions. Broadly, quality education encompasses seven characteristics.

• Rights-based: Quality education is accessible, equitable, protective, participatory, non-discriminatory, and inclusive of all people.
• Contextualized and relevant: Education systems address the needs of the learners by using culturally and linguistically relevant learning materials.
• Holistic development of learners: Quality education promotes cognitive development, social and emotional skills, mental health and psychosocial wellbeing, values of responsible citizenship, economic sustainability, and peacebuilding.
• Teaching and learning: Teachers receive adequate compensation and relevant training so that they understand pedagogic content and have the knowledge and skills they need to support learners’ holistic development.
• Enabling resources: Quality education includes adequate and relevant resources for teaching and learning and fosters links between the resources available in the learning environment, home, and community to improve holistic learning outcomes.
• Learning outcomes: Quality education allows learners to develop the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies to meet certification requirements, progress through the education system, and access lifelong learning opportunities.
• Learning continuity: Quality education provides sustained learning opportunities across the humanitarian-development-peacebuilding nexus.

Related Glossary terms

The Six A’s of Quality Education

Harry a. patrinos, eduardo velez bustillo, catherine yan wang.

Education systems reforms are needed in many countries to turn the tide. In a recent article , we propose the following as six necessary components (referred to as the 6A’s ) to achieve such reforms:

•  Assessment . Benchmarks and benchmark-based assessments are the cornerstone of education planning and reform aiming to improve quality. Countries that are unable to determine where their education system stands currently will find it difficult to make improvements or to reach their goals. One example of success in this area can be found in Jordan, where use of international tests for benchmarking and the use of feedback loops led to impressive gains.    
• Autonomy . Empowering schools will determine quality improvements. This includes giving them ownership, resources, and voice while enhancing school competitiveness. Across Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan and Korea – the five OECD countries with both an above-average student performance in science and a below-average impact of socio-economic background on student performance – 80% of 15-year-olds are in schools which report competing with one or more other schools in the area for students. Students in districts with 85% of schools competing with other schools tend to perform better. Autonomy’s potential for transforming education systems depends on whether increased autonomy is accompanied by enhanced accountability mechanisms.  
•  Accountability . As mentioned, autonomy and accountability are closely related. Accountability increases time on task and academic achievement. As decision-making power is redistributed, local authorities, school principals, teachers, and students are given new responsibilities for resource deployment and school activities. In an autonomy-based structure, school principals are held accountable to municipal authorities for (efficient) use of financial resources. Likewise, school principals are held accountable to both parents and local authorities for improving the learning environment and outcomes. An accountability-based system usually entails a shift of decision-making authority from the government to the community, which is represented by school governing boards and integrated by teachers, parents, and community members. In the United Kingdom in 1988, the government gave public secondary schools the option of removing local education authority control and becoming autonomous grant-maintained (GM) schools. GM schools were funded by a new agency but were owned and managed by the school governing body, a new 10-15 member entity composed of the head teacher, as well as teacher and parent representatives. Research finds large achievement gains at schools that voted for GM.  
• Attention to teachers . Studies across the world show that a good teacher–one that adds value to the learning process– can be effective in helping students to improve their learning outcomes. The top-performing school systems recruit their teachers from the top third of each graduate cohort: top 5% in South Korea, top 10% in Finland, and top 30% in Singapore and Hong Kong SAR, China. This screening helps to ensure that teachers possess the skills and knowledge necessary to be effective educators. Additionally, in-service training helps teachers to maintain those skills.   
• Attention to early childhood development . Early childhood development (ECD) may be the most cost-effective educational investment. Empirical evidence demonstrates that quality ECD interventions increase educational success and adult productivity, and decrease public expenditures later on. A study in Jamaica found that children in a treatment group, whose mothers were taught ways in which to promote cognitive, physical, and emotional development during their child’s early years, earned on average 42% more as young adults than children in the control group who did not receive these benefits.  
• Attention to culture . Culture is important and often neglected. The use of the mother tongue as the language of instruction is one cultural area frequently disputed in many countries. For some, the topic has political overtones, for others it can be associated with religious values, and still for others costs are used as an excuse for opposition. In many countries, a significant number of students do not speak the national language in the home, which has practical implications for education. We, and others, have found that schools using mother tongues as the language of instruction have higher attendance and promotion rates, and lower repetition and dropout rates. This trend has specifically been noted in the case of indigenous peoples in Guatemala . Students also better learn their national language by the end of basic education if they first become literate in their mother tongue.

  Follow the World Bank education team on Twitter: @WBG_Education  

Senior Adviser, Education

Consultant, Education Sector, World Bank

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

• SDG4 coordination
• Global Education Monitoring Report
• Global Coalition for Education
• UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks
• Global network of technical and vocational education and training institutions
• Global network of learning cities
• Right to education
• Education in emergencies
• Inclusion in education
• Early childhood care and education
• Higher education
• Literacy and adult learning
• Technical and vocational education and training
• Education and gender equality
• Girls’ and women’s education in science and technology
• Teacher education
• Education policies and strategies
• Education management, monitoring and evaluation
• Assessment for improved learning outcomes
• Curriculum development
• Global citizenship education
• Education about the Holocaust and genocide
• Countering hate speech
• Education for sustainable development
• Health and education
• Digital learning and transformation of education
• Futures of Education
• All UNESCO news on education
• Education stories
• Subscribe to the Education monthly newsletter
• Publications
• Databases and tools
• National education profiles

About education

UNESCO believes that education is a human right for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality. The Organization is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to cover all aspects of education. It has been entrusted to lead the Global Education 2030 Agenda through  Sustainable Development Goal 4 . The roadmap to achieve this is the  Education 2030 Framework for Action  (FFA).

UNESCO provides global and regional leadership in education, strengthens education systems worldwide and responds to contemporary global challenges through education with gender equality an underlying principle.

Its work encompasses educational development from pre-school to higher education and beyond. Themes include global citizenship and sustainable development, human rights and gender equality, health and HIV and AIDS, as well as technical and vocational skills development.

How we work

UNESCO leads the coordination and monitoring of the  Global Education 2030 Agenda  through Sustainable Development Goal 4  and using the  Education 2030 Framework for Action  as a roadmap.

The  UNESCO Education Strategy 2014-2021  has three strategic objectives:

The education sector is shifting and evolving towards a more explicit, active commitment to addressing gender-related barriers within and beyond the education system. This shift is being accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic with more NGOs, local governments as well as national governments recognizing the role education has in promoting gender-transformative change. Many are responding to this shift with innovations that aim to address the persistent challenges faced by girls and women in education. By highlighting these key practices through the Prize, we can contribute to inspiring more action for girls and women.

We speak about the importance of gender-transformative change both in and beyond education. Can you define what this means for you?

Gender-transformative education aims not only to respond to gender disparities within the education system but also to harness the full potential of education to transform attitudes, practices and discriminatory gender norms. Education can support critical changes for gender equality, such as promoting women’s leadership, preventing gender-based violence, and catalyzing boys' and men's engagement to embrace gender equality.

I have been very impressed by the capacity shown by many organizations and individuals nominated to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure they could maintain the delivery of their programmes. We know that fewer girls and women have access to and use the internet, and the digital gender gap is growing, particularly in developing countries. Many found new ways of delivering educational content and finding solutions to conduct fully online or blended approaches to learning, often in low-resource settings where access to the internet is extremely limited.  

Related items

• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

• International
• South Africa
• Vision, mission & values
• Organisational structure
• Conferences and events
• African Centre for School Leadership
• Our partners
• Publications

• Vision, mission & values

Our Vision on Quality Education

You are here.

VVOB’s Definition of Quality Education

"A good quality education is one that provides all learners with capabilities they require to become economically productive, develop sustainable livelihoods, contribute to peaceful and democratic societies and enhance individual well-being. The learning outcomes that are required vary according to context but at the end of the basic education cycle must include threshold levels of literacy and numeracy, basic scientific knowledge and life skills including awareness and prevention of disease. Capacity development to improve the quality of teachers and other education stakeholders is crucial throughout this process."

Six Crucial Dimensions of Quality Education

VVOB believes that education leads to empowerment : a process of strengthening individuals, organisations and communities so they get more control over their own situations and environments. Quality education is a crucial factor in combating poverty and inequality in society. In quality education , VVOB distinguishes six dimensions that all interventions of the organisation need to meet.

• Privacy Statement
• Webdesign Novation

• High contrast
• Our history
• Children in India
• Our partners
• Where we work
• Frequently asked questions
• Press centre

Search UNICEF

• Quality education

Grade-appropriate education for all boys and girls.

• Available in:

Poor quality education is leading to poor learning outcomes in India, ultimately pushing children out of the education system and leaving them vulnerable to child labour, abuse and violence. Many classrooms continue to be characterized by teacher-centred rote learning, corporal punishment and discrimination.

Learning assessments show that many of those children who are in school are not learning the basics of literacy and numeracy or the additional knowledge and skills necessary for their all-round development as specified under the Right to Education Act.

Much remains to be done to ensure a child-friendly learning environment where all children benefit from gender-sensitive and inclusive classrooms, as well as the availability of improved water, sanitation and hygiene, and mid-day meal practices.   

Every girl and boy in India has the fundamental right to quality education, an education one that helps them to acquire basic literacy and numeracy, enjoy learning without fear and feel valued and included irrespective of where they come from.       

For the first time in 10 years, reading and arithmetic scores have improved in public funded schools at early grades (ASER 2016). In seven states (Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Telangana and Uttarakhand) reading level increased by 7 per cent at grade 3 level since 2014. This indicates that increase in learning is possible but takes time. Nevertheless, ASER 2018 showed that in grade 5 after more than four years of schooling, only half of all children could read a grade 2 level text fluently. The National Achievement Survey 2017 which was conducted for grades 3, 5 and 8 gave a similar picture with only 45.2 per cent of students achieving the targeted performance levels across all subjects and classes at the national level. States such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh with large populations of children from scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST) and minority communities have the lowest scores. In the NAS 2017 girls scored slightly higher or as the same level as boys.

While governments both national and state have invested in large scale learning assessments, the challenge is in the use of assessment data for improving the delivery of education rather than letting it remain a simple data collection exercise.

Successful performance in school is supported by a wide range of abilities, attitudes and socio-emotional competencies, beyond traditional literacy and numeracy skills - life skills significantly contribute to learning and are an aspect of quality education. While there is an understanding around the importance of life skills , there is a possible lack of alignment between traditional curricula and a life-skills learning agenda  and a lack of understanding of how these can be developed across the education continuum. The NEP brings this focus stressing the importance of leaning by doing.

Since March 2020, schools in India have been closed and learning has shifted to remote home-based learning for those who can access it. School closures will impact learning across the education system. Gains in enrolment, school completion, and learning must not get eroded due to the combination of schools being closed and socio-economic hardships related to Covid-19. According to the World Bank, five months of school closures due to COVID-19 will result in an immediate loss of 0.6 years of schooling adjusted for quality, bringing the effective learning that a student can achieve down from 7.9 years to 7.3 years. During this period of school closure, efforts have been made by governments to ensure continuity of learning for children while they have been home. Digital tools including internet based high tech tools like apps and online learning classes, social media platforms, television and radio were used extensively.    India is now looking at delivering education programmes differently and speedily to employ solutions, that accelerate impact and achieve scale across interventions targeted at children and adolescents.  

COVID-19 presents urgency as well as an incredible opportunity to act and transform the education system through technology using it as an important tool of capacity building, inclusiveness and quality learning, without replacing the essential role of teachers/facilitators. While technology is not a silver bullet to solve the problem of inequities in access and learning, it has huge potential for changing how teaching and learning is delivered in India, if employed in a systemic and inclusive way, empowering teachers, frontline workers, children and adolescents and increasing access to and quality of learning.

Currently around one-third of the 2.6 million secondary schools in India have ICT labs and a functional computer.  Universal access to technology in homes is yet a dream in tribal belts, interior locations, rural areas, and amongst children with disabilities. Children with poor or no access to technology face most challenges in continuing to learn. There is disproportional access to the internet across state, further extending into the rural-urban schism, where 13 per cent people of over five years of age in rural areas can use the internet against 37 per cent in urban areas. Additionally, the digital dichotomy extends to the access to hardware and devices where the poorest students and marginalised communities, including girls, do not have access to smartphones, and even if they do, internet connectivity remains poor.

The main area of UNICEF engagement and support is elementary education especially early grades and the transition to secondary education. As schools remain closed and children learn remotely, UNICEF will engage with state government for expanding access to remote learning options. UNICEF will support the expanded use of technology and the use of online systems to improve governance in education, enhance capacity of teachers, teacher support systems, other education functionaries and participation of children for enhanced learning and skills development. But at the same time recognizing that quality learning requires quality teachers and teaching.

Implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 being a priority UNICEF will provide technical support at national and state level in the key areas related to curriculum revision, learning assessment and reporting, foundational learning, life skills and career guidance.

Explore more

शर्म ना करो, अब चुप्पी तोड़ो, माहवारी पर झिझक छोड़ो

अभी भी हजारों लाखों महिलाएं रिस्क पर हैं, चुप्पी तोड़ो बात करो

Challenging to Championing: My Menstruation Journey

I have witnessed four generations of women in my family, who have undergone menstruation

UNICEF India appoints Kareena Kapoor Khan as National Ambassador #ForEveryChild

Meet the new UNICEF India Youth advocates

Gaurnashi, Nahid, Vinisha, Kartik sign up as new advocates for rights of children

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Equity? Equality? How Educators Can Tell the Difference

• Share article

Today’s post is the latest in a series on the difference between equity and equality .

‘Every Student Doesn’t Need the Same Thing’

Karen Baptiste, Ed.D., a senior consultant at McREL International, is a former special education teacher, instructional coach, and director who now works with K–12 schools across the United States to support improved teaching and learning. She is a co-author of The New Classroom Instruction That Works :

It’s common for educators to believe and teach that everyone should be treated fairly and equally. Having been a special education teacher, and being a person of color, I understand the impact on a child’s life when we treat everyone equally.

Equality, in general terms, is the belief that everyone should get the same treatment, the same resources, and the same starting point. That would be OK if our society did not rank race, gender, (dis)ability, religion, etc. Unfortunately, people of color have dealt with racism and oppression for hundreds of years, and they have not had equal treatment, fairness, nor the same starting point. When teachers say they want equality, what they are saying is that they want all of their students to be treated the same and, therefore, do not see or acknowledge the differences among their students.

When an educator says they believe in equality over equity, they overlook their students’ unique characteristics, abilities, and traits that make them who they are and alleviate themselves from the responsibility of having to address their students’ needs. Most people want to avoid discomfort, especially when the topic of race is surfaced. There is fear of getting it wrong or being accused of being a racist, so it’s easier to say “I treat all of my students the same.”

Equity acknowledges and addresses the unique needs of each student, and it is what we need to work toward. Because of my dark skin, and because of my gender, and because of the texture of my hair, and because of the language I speak, I am born into a world where I am too often dismissed and seen as inferior, not just in school but at work, when buying a home, shopping at the grocery store, traveling, and engaging in any part of living life. There is no part of our lives that has gone untouched by racism and/or discrimination. People of color are still fighting today to be seen and heard as an equal, valued member in the world. Until that happens, we can’t talk about equality.

Equity says I see you.

Equity says I want to understand you.

Equity says I accept your Black and brown skin.

Equity says there is nothing wrong with you or your existence in the world.

Equity says I recognize your learning needs and I am willing to learn the best ways to teach you and provide you with the resources that you need to be successful so that you can feel equal in this space.

Every student doesn’t need the same thing. Equality pushes for everyone to get the same thing, while equity is about giving every student what they need to be successful. Let’s set aside the topic of race momentarily and think about the grave outcomes if we treat students with special needs equal to their peers without special needs. What if the expectation during physical education class is to run two laps in a specified time? Students who use a wheelchair cannot realistically meet that expectation. This is why the federal law requires children designated for special education services to have an individualized education program, because their needs are not equal; they do not need equal treatment, they need equitable treatment and resources in order to access a quality education. Now, think about your student in class who needs to use manipulatives during a math lesson while other students can do mental math.

All students learn differently and can meet mastery when equity becomes part of your practice. Some might consider this pedantic when discussing equality and equity, but it’s not. Providing students with the resources they need to be successful provides them with the psychological safety that is sometimes missing in classrooms but gravely needed.

‘Equity Is Not an Initiative’

PJ Caposey is the Illinois Superintendent of the Year and is a best-selling author, having written nine books for various publishers. PJ is a sought after presenter and consultant who has a widely read weekly newsletter available at www.pjcaposey.com :

Sometimes, I think the concept of equity compared to equality is very difficult and complex. Other times, I think it is straightforward and people out of an act of willful ignorance choose not to understand. I work hard to keep a positive mindset, so my intent in this is to provide six practical examples to demonstrate the difference and how it plays out in schools.

• A student’s grandmother is in the hospital, and their attendance suffers, so you modify some assignments to ensure you are measuring their progress toward standards but limiting the volume to best meet the student’s needs. EQUITY
• A student’s grandmother is in the hospital, and their attendance suffers, and you keep them responsible for the exact work everyone else must complete. EQUALITY
• A student struggles to read and has a documented disability, so their tests are read to them. EQUITY
• A student struggles to read and has a documented disability, but you provide zero assistance to them because it would not be fair to the other students. EQUALITY
• A district analyzes their data and creates plans to close achievement gaps by paying special attention to those groups not performing well. EQUITY
• A district analyzes their data and creates improvement plans that are equally applied to all students. EQUALITY
• Based on benchmark assessment results, some students are placed in intervention groupings to support their learning needs. EQUITY
• Despite assessment results, all students receive the exact same instruction throughout the course of the day. EQUALITY
• All students who wish to participate in Advanced Placement courses are allowed to do so despite previous performance if they attend an in-person meeting articulating the demands of the course. EQUITY
• Only students who have a 3.2 grade point average and have had less than five missing assignments per year on average are allowed to participate in Advanced Placement courses without any exceptions. EQUALITY
• Some staff members have advanced degrees in reading so their professional development requirements around the new reading curriculum are altered to acknowledge their expertise. EQUITY
• All staff members are required to attend the same professional development regardless of prior knowledge or expertise. EQUALITY

My point in sharing these very realistic examples of equity versus equality is twofold. I have come to the realization that we “DO” equity far more than some people would elect to realize. Second, even those who are reluctant to embrace the fact that schools should have an equity focus typically want schools to make equitable decisions when it comes to them or their children. From that statement, feel free to extrapolate what you will.

I will leave with one last thought on the topic. Equity is not a goal. Equity is not an initiative. Equity is a mindset and a lens through which we make innumerable decisions every single day. Whenever we consider how we can best serve an individual student or lead an individual staff member by meeting them where they are at and helping them to get where they need to be, we are operating with an equity mindset.

‘Equity Empowers’

A retired teacher and speaker, Denise Fawcett Facey now writes on education issues. Among her books, Can I Be in Your Class focuses on ways to enliven classroom learning:

The words “That’s not fair” have become a virtual children’s anthem. Heard from homes to playgrounds to classrooms, those three words—spoken almost in the cadence of a song—are the outcry of kids everywhere, conveying their frustration over what they perceive as unequal treatment when things don’t go as they expected. Although we tend to ignore that all-too-common outburst, the early sense of justice that underlies it just as often informs adult concepts of equality as well, fostering an expectation that everyone will be treated the same. However, there is a striking difference between appearing to treat everyone equally and ensuring that everyone has the equity offered by an equal opportunity.

In an educational setting, affording everyone an equal chance at success means equity supersedes equality. From differentiation in teaching methods to the hiring of teachers, among other factors, here are four differences between equality and equity:

• Differentiation. Just as we don’t expect all students to wear eyeglasses in the name of equality, we shouldn’t expect all students to learn in the same way, either. Differentiation settles that. Providing what each student needs for optimal learning, it might be as simple as eyeglasses, preferential seating, or extended time for assignments. However, the chance to present mastery in multiple ways or to use books and other resources that are culturally relevant are also means of differentiation. Although the content area is the same for all students, as are the myriad tools available (there’s your equality), each uses the tool that enables that student to achieve success. That’s not only differentiation. It’s equity.
• Admission to gifted classes. While white, able-bodied students of a certain intellectual ability and socioeconomic level generally have an equal opportunity to be admitted to classes for gifted students, admission tends to exclude students of color as well as students with physical disabilities and those of lower socioeconomic levels, all of whom have eligible students among them. Equality makes certain that all schools have classes for gifted students. Equity goes beyond that, seeking to identify gifted students among those underrepresented groups within each school and assuring that they also gain admittance to gifted classes once identified.
• Hiring diverse teachers. It’s easy to point with pride to teachers of color in a district or to teachers who use wheelchairs, believing them to be reflections of equality and diversity. However, how many are there? And where are these teachers placed? Equality merely says there are some of each. Equity provides an equal opportunity for ALL teachers to teach at any school, not simply affording them an interview at the “better” schools with no hope of being hired nor relegating these teachers to schools designated “inner city” or “low achieving.” Equity also ensures that the number of teachers outside the dominant group is at least representative of their numbers in that community.
• A seat at the table. Much like hiring practices, opening a committee or group to people not normally invited is ostensibly equality. After all, this type of equality frequently involves having “one of each kind,” so to speak, with representation from various racial and ethnic groups and possibly from different ability groups as well. However, it’s certainly not equity as the newly invited are expected to be grateful for the invitation, not to be bold enough to participate as equals. Without affording these participants a genuine voice, it’s educational tokenism that solely allows one to be present. Equity, on the other hand, balances power, legitimizing each person’s voice.

Returning to that childhood question of fairness, equity is the true answer for both students and educators. Offering an equal playing field for success, equity empowers, placing everyone on equal footing.

Thanks to Karen, PJ, and Denise for contributing their thoughts!

Today’s post answered this question:

It’s not unusual for districts, schools, and educators to confuse “equality” with “equity.” What are examples, and ways, you would help them understand the difference?

Part One in this series featured responses from Jehan Hakim, Mary Rice-Boothe, Jennifer Cárdenas, and Shaun Nelms.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email . And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 12 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

What You Need to Know About the Long Fight for Educational Equity

Key takeaways from the 2024 phyllis l. kossoff lecture on education and policy, presented by dr. crystal r. sanders.

Just over 70 years after Brown v Board of Education, educational equity is still elusive, even more so after a rise in book bans and the end of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Offering inspiration for the future by looking to the past, this year’s Phyllis L. Kossoff Lecture on Education and Policy, given by Dr. Crystal R. Sanders, draws connections between the historical struggle for high quality education and the current fight for fair and equitable schooling.

Established in 2007 by distinguished alum Phyllis L. Kossoff , the lecture series has provided a platform to further critical conversations on education, policy and research. For the 10th lecture, the first since Kossoff’s passing in 2022, Sanders, Associate Professor of African American Studies at Emory University College of Arts and Sciences, gave an illuminating lecture on an educational migration that occurred during the Jim Crow era. 

Her talk, “A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners and Graduate Education During the Era of Legal Segregation,” outlined the myriad difficulties Black Southerners faced as they sought out graduate education in often hostile environments. She focused specifically on “segregation scholarships,” a term originated by Sanders that describes state funding given to Black students to support their studies at Northern colleges and universities in order to maintain segregation in the South. 

Find takeaways from her lecture — a preview of her upcoming book, A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners, Segregation Scholarships, and the Debt Owed to Public HBCUs — below.

(Photo courtesy of Sanders)

Many Black scholars, especially recipients of segregation scholarships, came to TC for their studies

It’s unknown precisely how many Black students came to TC on a segregation scholarship however, according to Sanders, the College’s summer continuing studies program was one of the most popular during that time period. Being a top graduate school of education with a history of accepting Black students certainly played a role, but Sanders cites proximity to Harlem and Mabel Carney’s, head of TC’s Rural Education Department from 1918 to 1941 , course on Negro Education as a major draw for scholars. 

Existing relationships with Southern educators combined with a willingness to accept Black students, Sanders noted, made TC a top choice for Black educators at the time. The work of professors like Arthur Linden, who ran summer courses for degree credit in Asheville, N.C., further expanded TC’s reach in the South and made higher education more accessible to Southern scholars.

Post-graduate students conducting a lab experiment, 1942. From left to right: J.S. Newcomer, A.E. Bell, Hiss Trondailer Jones and Samuel Massie. (Photo: FAS/OWI Photograph Collection, Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.)

Segregation Scholarships offered great opportunities, at a high cost

As explained by Sanders, during legal segregation, virtually all Southern schools with graduate programs refused to accept Black students, while Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were often unable to offer graduate programs due to lack of funding from state legislatures. This forced Black students to journey North for their education which was often out of reach financially. To offset the costs, students leveraged the “separate but equal” doctrine, pushing Southern states to pay for Black students forced to study out of state. Sixteen Southern states started segregation scholarship programs between 1921 and 1948, despite these programs being deemed unconstitutional in 1938 .

Even though scholarships offered needed opportunity, “​​most of [the recipients] felt that there was a disadvantage professionally, [and] a disadvantage personally,” said Sanders. Professional degrees received out of state were met with undue scrutiny and created more hurdles, such as law students who had to study legal codes for two states at one time. Students also encountered racism in the North, struggled to find housing and dealt with extreme pressure to “behave properly” at their new school. The isolation students felt was compounded by their inability to visit home during their studies, as scholarships often didn’t cover basic living expenses, let alone travel expenses for a trip home.

Howard University students on campus, 1942 (Photo: Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Photograph Collection, Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.)

Pushing Black scholars to study at Northern institutions created an enormous debt at Southern HBCUs

While they have a rich legacy, many HBCUs have crumbling buildings and small endowments . Consistent underfunding plays a major role in this decay — over the course of 33 years, 18 state-run land-grant HBCUs were underfunded by $12.3 billion , adjusted for inflation — as does the legacy of segregation scholarships. Rather than being paid by the state, scholarships were instead taken from the operating budget of Black colleges and universities. 

While individual scholarships weren’t substantial enough to cover each student’s needs, it still cost schools an incredible sum. By Sanders’s calculations, just one year of segregation scholarships cost Mississippi HBCUs $5.3 million dollars in today’s money and they ran scholarships for 20 years. Sanders argued that those funds could have been used to update infrastructure, attract faculty, and support new research. Instead, HBCUs had to foot the bill of segregationist policies. 

To address this lack, Sanders proposes that state governments give HBCUs “equity funding” by making an endowment contribution that matches the amount of money spent by each school on segregation scholarships, adjusted for inflation. “Nothing less is acceptable,” she said.

Despite the financial difficulties, isolation and racism scholars faced, they fought for their education out of a desire for a better life, Sanders explains. When they returned home with their hard-earned degrees, graduates set about “using their credentials and their training to create the type of world they want in these Southern communities,” said Sanders.

Sander’s forthcoming book, A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners, Segregation Scholarships, and the Debt Owed to Public HBCUs , will be published in October of this year. 

— Sherri Gardner

Tags: Higher Education History of Education

Published Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Teachers College Newsroom

Address: Institutional Advancement 193-197 Grace Dodge Hall

Box: 306 Phone: (212) 678-3231 Email: views@tc.columbia.edu

The influences of ChatGPT on undergraduate students’ demonstrated and perceived interdisciplinary learning

• Published: 29 May 2024

Cite this article

• Tianlong Zhong 1 ,
• Gaoxia Zhu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4589-0775 2 ,
• Chenyu Hou 1 ,
• Yuhan Wang 2 &
• Xiuyi Fan 3  

10 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The significance of interdisciplinary learning has been well-recognized by higher education institutions. However, when teaching interdisciplinary learning to junior undergraduate students, their limited disciplinary knowledge and underrepresentation of students from some disciplines can hinder their learning performance. ChatGPT’s ability to engage in human-like conversations and massive knowledge grounded in different disciplines holds promise in enriching undergraduate students with the disciplinary knowledge that they lack. In this exploratory study, we engaged 130 undergraduate students in a three-condition quasi-experiment to examine how ChatGPT influences their demonstrated and perceived interdisciplinary learning quality, as measured by their online posts and surveys, respectively. The content analysis results show that overall, students’ online posts could be coded into four interdisciplinary learning dimensions: diversity, disciplinary grounding, cognitive advancement, and integration. The means of the first three dimensions were close to the middle level (ranging from 0.708 to 0.897, and the middle level is 1), whereas the mean score of integration was relatively small (i.e., 0.229). Students under the ChatGPT condition demonstrated improved disciplinary grounding. Regarding their perceived interdisciplinary learning quality, we did not find significant differences across the three conditions in the pre- or post-surveys. The findings underscore ChatGPT’s ability to enhance students’ disciplinary grounding and the significance of further fostering their integration skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

Because of confidentiality agreements and ethical concerns, the data used in this study will not be made public. These data will be made available to other researchers on a case-by-case basis.

Alberta Education (2015). Interdisciplinary Learning . https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/kes/pdf/or_ws_tea_elem_05_interdis.pdf

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). The psychological structure of Creative writing. Australian Journal of Education , 26 (1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418202600104

Article   Google Scholar  

Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology , 15 (3), ep430. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Hoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Effective field trips in nature: The interplay between novelty and learning. Journal of Biological Education , 53 (1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1418760

Boix-Mansilla, V. (2010). Learning to Synthesize: The development of Interdisciplinary understanding. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (pp. 288–306). Oxford University Press.

Boix-Mansilla, V., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted Assessment of Students’ Interdisciplinary Work: An empirically grounded Framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education , 78 (2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11780874

Boix-Mansilla, V., Duraisingh, E. D., Wolfe, C. R., & Haynes, C. (2009). Targeted Assessment Rubric: An empirically grounded Rubric for Interdisciplinary writing. The Journal of Higher Education , 80 (3), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779016

Bordt, S., & von Luxburg, U. (2023). ChatGPT Participates in a Computer Science Exam (arXiv:2303.09461). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.09461

Brassler, M., & Dettmers, J. (2017). How to enhance interdisciplinary competence—interdisciplinary problem-based learning versus Interdisciplinary Project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning , 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1686

Broadbent, S., & Gallotti, M. (2015). Collective intelligence: How does it emerge . NESTA.

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities . National Science Teachers Association.

Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. (2023). ChatGPT Goes to Law School (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4335905). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4335905

Clark, T. M. (2023). Investigating the Use of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot with General Chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education , 100 (5), 1905–1916. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027

Cole, M. L., Cox, J. D., & Stavros, J. M. (2018). SOAR as a mediator of the Relationship between Emotional intelligence and collaboration among professionals working in teams: Implications for entrepreneurial teams. SAGE Open , 8 (2), 2158244018779109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018779109

Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates are Running the Asylum. In U. Arend, E. Eberleh, & K. Pitschke (Eds.), Software-Ergonomie ’99: Design von Informationswelten (pp. 17–17). Vieweg + Teubner Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-99786-9_1

Cooper, G. (2023). Examining Science Education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 32 (3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y

Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 56 (293), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1961.10482090

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., & Wright, R. (2023). Opinion Paper: So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management , 71 , 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

Eisen, A., Hall, A., Lee, T. S., & Zupko, J. (2009). Teaching Water: Connecting Across disciplines and into Daily Life to address Complex Societal issues. College Teaching , 57 (2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.57.2.99-104

Elsayed, S. (2023). Towards Mitigating ChatGPT’s Negative Impact on Education: Optimizing Question Design through Bloom’s Taxonomy (arXiv:2304.08176). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.08176

Falk, J. H. (1983). Field trips: A look at environmental effects on learning. Journal of Biological Education , 17 (2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1983.9654522

Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., Mitcham, C., & Holbrook, J. B. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . Oxford University Press.

Ghazali, S. A., Zaki, N., Ali, L., & Harous, S. (2024). Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a Substitute teacher: A Case Study. International Journal of Information and Education Technology , 14 (2), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.2.2048

Gilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023). How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing examination? The implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment. JMIR Medical Education , 9 (1), e45312. https://doi.org/10.2196/45312

Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2022). Small effects: The Indispensable Foundation for a cumulative Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 17 (1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483

Gvili, I. E. F., Weissburg, M., Yen, J., Helms, M. E., & Tovey, C. (2016). Development of scoring rubric for evaluating integrated understanding in an undergraduate biologically-inspired design course. International Journal of Engineering Education . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Development-of-scoring-rubric-for-evaluating-in-an-Gvili-Weissburg/53fb00b8bf56209192de2da3528aa31adafc5f66

He, F., Mazumdar, S., Tang, G., Bhatia, T., Anderson, S. J., Dew, M. A., Krafty, R., Nimgaonkar, V., Deshpande, S., Hall, M., & Reynolds, I. I. I., C. F (2017). Non-parametric MANOVA approaches for non-normal multivariate outcomes with missing values. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods , 46 (14), 7188–7200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2016.1146767

Hong, W. C. H. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on foreign language teaching and learning: Opportunities in education and research. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation , 5 (1), Article1. https://jeti.thewsu.org/index.php/cieti/article/view/103

Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Fryer, L. K. (2022). Chatbots for language learning—are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 38 (1), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12610

Huutoniemi, K. (2010). Evaluating interdisciplinary research. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 309–320). Oxford University Press.

Hwang, A. H. C., & Won, A. S. (2021). IdeaBot: Investigating Social Facilitation in Human-Machine Team Creativity. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445270

Iku-Silan, A., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, C. H. (2023). Decision-guided chatbots and cognitive styles in interdisciplinary learning. Computers & Education , 201 , 104812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104812

Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education , 27 (2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984

Jeon, J., & Lee, S. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1

Kajonmanee, T., Chaipidech, P., Srisawasdi, N., & Chaipah, K. (2020). A personalised mobile learning system for promoting STEM discipline teachers’ TPACK development. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation , 14 (2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2020.106186

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences , 103 , 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kidron, A. (2015). Y. Kali (Ed.), Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology 23 https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26496

Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2023). Promoting interdisciplinary understanding in asynchronous online higher education courses: A learning communities approach. Instructional Science , 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09635-7

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing Interdisciplinary studies. In J. G. Gaff, & J. L. Ratcliff (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate Crriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change (pp. 393–415). Jossey-Bass.

Kostka, I., & Toncelli, R. (2023). Exploring applications of ChatGPT to English Language Teaching: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. Teaching English as a second or foreign . Language–TESL-EJ , 27 (3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.27107int

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.

Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 47 (260), 583–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441

Lam, J. C. K., Walker, R. M., & Hills, P. (2014). Interdisciplinarity in sustainability studies: A review. Sustainable Development , 22 (3), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.533

Lattuca, L., Knight, D., & Bergom, I. (2012). Developing a measure of interdisciplinary competence for engineers. 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , 25.415.1-25.415.19 . https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--21173

Lee, H. Y., Cheng, Y. P., Wang, W. S., Lin, C. J., & Huang, Y. M. (2023). Exploring the learning process and effectiveness of STEM Education via Learning Behavior Analysis and the interactive-constructive- active-Passive Framework. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 61 (5), 951–976. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221136888

Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the literature. Education Sciences , 13 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410 Article 4.

Lyall, C., Meagher, L., Bandola, J., & Kettle, A. (2016). Interdisciplinary provision in higher education: Current and future challenges . University of Edinburgh.

MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese , 195 (2), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4

MacLeod, M., & van der Veen, J. T. (2020). Scaffolding interdisciplinary project-based learning: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education , 45 (3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1646210

Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., Ladd, B., Pearon, J., & Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM Education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science , 20 , 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316

Markauskaite, L., Muukkonen, H., Damsa, C., Thompson, K., Arthars, N., Celik, I., Sutphen, M., Esterhazy, R., Solbrekke, T. D., Sugrue, C., McCune, V., Wheeler, P., Vasco, D., & Kali, Y. (2020). Interdisciplinary Learning in Undergraduate and Graduate Education: Conceptualizations and Empirical Accounts . https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/6664

Maugoust, J. (2023). Multivariate Kruskal-Wallis test [Computer software]. https://github.com/jacobmaugoust/ULT/blob/master/R/multkw.R

McBee, J. C., Han, D. Y., Liu, L., Ma, L., Adjeroh, D. A., Xu, D., & Hu, G. (2023). Interdisciplinary Inquiry via PanelGPT: Application to explore Chatbot Application in sports Rehabilitation. medRxiv , 2023.07.23.23292452 . https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.23.23292452

Merrell, B., Calderwood, K. J., & Graham, T. (2017). Across the disciplines: Structured Classroom debates in Interdisciplinary Curricula. Contemporary Argumentation & Debate , 37 , 57–74.

Google Scholar  

Ogle, D., Doll, J., Wheeler, A., & Dinno, A. (2023). FSA: Simple Fisheries Stock Assessment Methods (R package version 0.9.5) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FSA

Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 2 , 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033

OpenAI (2023). ChatGPT . https://chat.openai.com

Ouyang, F., Wu, M., Zhang, L., Xu, W., Zheng, L., & Cukurova, M. (2023). Making strides towards AI-supported regulation of learning in collaborative knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior , 142 , 107650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107650

Prentzas, J., & Sidiropoulou, M. (2023). Assessing the Use of Open AI Chat-GPT in a University Department of Education. 2023 14th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA) , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IISA59645.2023.10345910

Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education. 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121

Redshaw, C. H., & Frampton, I. (2014). Optimising inter-disciplinary problem-based learning in Postgraduate Environmental and Science Education: Recommendations from a case study. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education , 9 (1), 97–110.

Remington-Doucette, S. M., Hiller Connell, K. Y., Armstrong, C. M., & Musgrove, S. L. (2013). Assessing sustainability education in a transdisciplinary undergraduate course focused on real‐world problem solving: A case for disciplinary grounding. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 14 (4), 404–433. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2012-0001

Roy, E. D., Morzillo, A. T., Seijo, F., Reddy, S. M. W., Rhemtulla, J. M., Milder, J. C., Kuemmerle, T., & Martin, S. L. (2013). The elusive pursuit of Interdisciplinarity at the Human—Environment Interface. BioScience , 63 (9), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.10

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 39 (5), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10027

Sadeghi, H., & Kardan, A. A. (2015). A novel justice-based linear model for optimal learner group formation in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior , 48 , 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.020

Sharp, E. (2015). Interdisciplinary experiences: A postgraduate geographer’s perspective. Journal of Geography in Higher Education , 39 (2), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.956295

Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review , 21 (4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z

Stentoft, D. (2017). From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer? Active Learning in Higher Education , 18 (1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693510

Stutz, P., Elixhauser, M., Grubinger-Preiner, J., Linner, V., Reibersdorfer-Adelsberger, E., Traun, C., Wallentin, G., Wöhs, K., & Zuberbühler, T. (2023). Ch(e)atGPT? An Anecdotal Approach addressing the Impact of ChatGPT on Teaching and Learning GIScience [Preprint]. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/j3m9b

Tang, J., Zhou, X., Wan, X., Daley, M., & Bai, Z. (2023). ML4STEM Professional Development Program: Enriching K-12 STEM teaching with machine learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 33 (1), 185–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00292-4

Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Virvou, M. (2017). Integrating an Adjusted Conversational Agent into a Mobile-Assisted Language Learning Application. 2017 IEEE 29th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) , 1153–1157. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2017.00176

Upton, K., & Kay, J. (2009). Narcissus: Group and Individual Models To Support Small Group Work. In G. J. Houben, G. McCalla, F. Pianesi, & M. Zancanaro (Eds.), User modeling, Adaptation, and personalization (Vol. 5535, pp. 54–65). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02247-0_8

Xu, L. (2020). The Dilemma and countermeasures of AI in Educational Application. 2020 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence , 289 , 294. https://doi.org/10.1145/3445815.3445863

Yee, B. L. C., Hou, C., Zhu, G., Lim, F. S., Lyu, S., & Fan, X. (2023). A Software platform for evaluating Student essays in Interdisciplinary learning with topic classification techniques. Artificial Intelligence in Education , 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36336-8_100

Zhan, Y., So, W. W. M., & Cheng, I. N. Y. (2017). Students’ beliefs and experiences of interdisciplinary learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 37 (3), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2017.1301880

Zhu, G., & Burrow, A. L. (2022). Youth Voice in Self-Driven Learning as a context for Interdisciplinary Learning. Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches , 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.51383/jesma.2022.29

Zhu, G., Fan, X., Hou, C., Zhong, T., Seow, P., Shen-Hsing, A. C., Rajalingam, P., Yew, L. K., & Poh, T. L. (2023). Embrace Opportunities and Face Challenges: Using ChatGPT in Undergraduate Students’ Collaborative Interdisciplinary Learning (arXiv:2305.18616). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.18616

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the students who participated in this study.

This study was supported by the NTU Edex Teaching and Learning Grants (Grant No. NTU EdeX 1/22 ZG).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate College, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Tianlong Zhong & Chenyu Hou

National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Gaoxia Zhu & Yuhan Wang

Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaoxia Zhu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest in the work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhong, T., Zhu, G., Hou, C. et al. The influences of ChatGPT on undergraduate students’ demonstrated and perceived interdisciplinary learning. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12787-9

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 12 May 2024

Published : 29 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12787-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interdisciplinary learning quality
• Quasi-experiment
• Content analysis
• Undergraduate
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

  Nigerian Medical Journal Journal / Nigerian Medical Journal / Vol. 65 No. 2 (2024) / Articles (function() { function async_load(){ var s = document.createElement('script'); s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; var theUrl = 'https://www.journalquality.info/journalquality/ratings/2406-www-ajol-info-nmj'; s.src = theUrl + ( theUrl.indexOf("?") >= 0 ? "&" : "?") + 'ref=' + encodeURIComponent(window.location.href); var embedder = document.getElementById('jpps-embedder-ajol-nmj'); embedder.parentNode.insertBefore(s, embedder); } if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent('onload', async_load); else window.addEventListener('load', async_load, false); })();  

Article sidebar.

Article Details

Main article content, factors determining satisfaction with service delivery at family medicine clinics of a tertiary hospital in north central nigeria., tensaba andes akafa, kingsley iyoko iseko.

Background : Patients’ satisfaction with service delivered at the healthcare facility is a critical index of quality of care in the health industry. Hence, it is paramount to ascertain patients’ satisfaction to improve service delivery. Methodology: The study was a cross-sectional design conducted among 104 patients aged 18 to 65 years who were on follow-up for chronic diseases at the Family Medicine Clinics. Data was collected from the participants via an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Statistical significance was determined using paired samples t-test, Chi-square, and logistic regression was set at a p-value of ≤ 0.05. Results: The study used 104 patients with chronic diseases. The mean age of the study population (N = 104) was 51.83± 9.37 years. The ages ranged from 21-69 years.65 (62.5%) were females; male to female ratio was 1:1.7. The majority of them had formal education 59 (56.7%). There were no statistically significant differences in the socio-demographic characteristics. Waiting time was found to be the most significant predictor of patient satisfaction in this study (P=0.003; O. R=3.17, CI=1.03-1.15). The overall satisfaction score with service delivery in the study area was 71.4%. Conclusion: Patients recorded a high level of satisfaction with service delivery 71.4% for the care received at the study site, particularly during their experiences with the physicians, pharmacists, lab scientists, nurses, and record officers, and the neatness of the clinic’s environment. The results indicate that good communication has a positive effect on patients’ level of satisfaction. Henceforth, service providers should employ patient-centered communication to improve the quality of care.

AJOL is a Non Profit Organisation that cannot function without donations. AJOL and the millions of African and international researchers who rely on our free services are deeply grateful for your contribution. AJOL is annually audited and was also independently assessed in 2019 by E&Y.

Your donation is guaranteed to directly contribute to Africans sharing their research output with a global readership.

• For annual AJOL Supporter contributions, please view our Supporters page.

Journal Identifiers

Utah governor GOP primary voter guide: What to know about Spencer Cox and Phil Lyman

Utah’s current governor, Spencer Cox , wants a second term to lead the Beehive State. He faces a right flank challenge from state Rep. Phil Lyman who has challenged the governor on several fronts including Cox’s Disagree Better campaign, immigration and economic issues like housing and the state budget.

We asked Utahns what mattered to them during the primary season and that feedback informed this primary voter guide.

Methodology: An identical survey was sent to both campaigns. Provided answers were fact-checked prior to the publication of this guide and we included links and/or editor’s notes on our findings. If a candidate did not respond, KUER leaned on public statements, interviews and additional reporting to provide voters with useful information. Candidates appear in alphabetical order by surname.

What motivates you to run for office? (Ireland, Weber County)

• Cox: I first entered public service years ago when I was appointed to the Fairview City Council. The incumbent left mid-term and, in a town of 1,200, that meant it was my turn to serve. I learned that I enjoyed working with others to solve our town’s problems, from restoring a well-loved community dance hall to literally putting out fires. That drive to solve problems continues in my role as governor , and over the past three years we’ve worked hard to find solutions – from saving the Great Salt Lake to increasing teacher pay to fighting federal overreach. In Utah, we give back and public service is one way I can give back to the people of this great state.

Lyman: 128 years ago, on January 4, 1896, Utah became a state. What does that mean? What is a state?

If we don’t understand personhood, parenthood, and statehood, we are not likely to understand what it means to have a state. We won't understand what it means to have a republican form of government, as each state is guaranteed by the Constitution Article IV .

And what does it look like if States don’t believe in statehood? They defer to the Federal government, they falsely believe that the federal government is the sovereign, not the people - that the supremacy clause makes the federal the master and the states the servants. They believe that power is top-down. They believe that money is top-down. That is what our founding mothers and fathers left. They rejected the vassal states of Europe and England.

And once government fails to recognize that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, they get everything wrong after that.

I plan to restore respect for individual rights, for parental rights, and I plan to tell the federal government to stay in their lane with respect to Utah's Statehood.

What is your top priority if elected? (Carol, Utah County)

• Cox: Utah is ranked the best state in the nation for economic strength, economic mobility, social capital, happiness and the list goes on. The one thing that keeps me up at night is the cost of housing, but we know what the solution is: We need to build more homes. We’ve set a goal to build 35,000 new starter homes in the next five years and here’s how. First, we worked with the Legislature to create an innovative finance tool to help cities and developers pay for the infrastructure that new homes need. Second, we worked with cities to streamline their zoning and building permitting processes which will speed up construction and bring costs down. Third, we created a new housing fund that will help small- and medium-sized developers finance their projects to build more homes. Fourth, we modified the state’s building code to allow more modular homes, which will especially spur home building in our rural communities. Fifth, we created a new funding tool that will focus on infill development and another that will help pay for transportation solutions that reduce congestion. All of these actions will help bring down the cost of housing and help more Utahns become homeowners.

Lyman: Government is supposed to function within its proper lanes. I would ensure that the executive branch in Utah stays in its powerful lane and does not interfere with the legislative branch and vice versa. I would also ensure that the federal government stays in its lane and that Utah pushes back on unconstitutional mandates . Similarly, I would push power to the counties to function as the government closest to the people. In Federalist 51 , James Madison wrote, "division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people, is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal], and then the portion allotted to each, subdivided among distinct and separate departments … The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people."

My top priority would be to restore proper order to Utah's government at all levels. 

If elected, how do you plan to represent all Utahns, not just those of your own party? (Alison, Salt Lake County)

• Cox: As governor, I know that I represent all 3.4 million people who call Utah home, not just those in the GOP. That’s why I work with those from both parties on issues that matter. I’ve worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats to ensure that our streets and parks are safe and our homeless friends are getting the treatment they need. I’ve also worked across the aisle to secure the Olympic bid for the 2034 Winter Games and to address water issues, housing, education and so much more. As chair of the National Governors Association , I launched an initiative to reduce partisan animosity by learning to disagree without hating each other. I stand firm on conservative values, but I work hard to make sure partisanship doesn’t get in the way of solving problems.
• Lyman: Individual freedom is central to my political beliefs , and it is not a partisan concept. I have often said that no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, freedom means freedom. Government is too big, and tends to intervene in people's lives too much. Both parties are guilty of freely stepping on the rights of people. Letting people make their own decisions is key to representing all people regardless of party affiliation.

What do you plan to do to save the Great Salt Lake and protect air quality? (Claudia, Weber County)

Cox: We worked with the Legislature to dramatically change Utah water laws to encourage more conservation and I’m pleased to report our coordinated efforts – plus two great snow years – are paying off. We signed legislation that adjusts mineral extraction when lake levels are low. We also changed the law so farmers can sell or send any extra water downstream without losing their water rights . We’ve increased planning for long-term water projects along with funding to improve water infrastructure. We’ve encouraged Utahns to conserve and install waterwise landscaping and they’ve responded, saving thousands of gallons of water every year. 

On air quality, the number one contributing factor continues to be our own tailpipes and our homes. With the adoption of Tier 3 fuels and the voluntary adoption of electric vehicles, Utah continues to improve its air quality. I am not a believer in big-government mandates on Utah homeowners and will continue to focus my efforts on supporting common-sense incentives to reduce each of our own individual contributions to our air quality challenge. 

• Lyman: We live in a desert and water will always be a concern. The situation with the Great Salt Lake, however, is a manufactured crisis to justify centralization of Utah's water. If we want to fill the Great Salt Lake, it will be through forest management. A healthy forest will produce as much as 40% more water. Yet Utah is prohibited from managing the forests within our borders because of dysfunctional federal policies. By pushing back on federal restrictions on our forests, Utah could have healthy, vibrant forests, and a dramatic increase in water to fill our lakes and reservoirs.

What solutions do you have to make it more affordable to live in Utah? (Chandler, Utah County)

• Cox: The problem of inflation is not unique to Utahns. Americans from blue states and red states continue to experience enormous economic challenges due to the dysfunction and financial malpractice we see in the federal government. Utah balances its budget every year and maintains a AAA bond rating – a higher rating than the U.S. government. Think about that for a minute. Investors believe that the State of Utah is a safer investment than the federal government. While not a cure-all for the problems associated with this inflation caused at the federal level, I’m proud to have partnered with the Legislature to return to Utah taxpayers the largest tax cut in Utah history – $1.3 billion.

Lyman: Our policies have created the housing market that we have in Utah. Huge subsidies to build high density housing have resulted in all the resources going to large housing complexes, leaving the single-family home industry short of supply. At the same time, because of the subsidies, both federal and state, the builders have found it very lucrative to build high-density homes. Rather than having a surplus of homes and declining prices, we have overpriced homes even at the lowest level. By stopping the subsidies, obtaining more land currently held by the federal government , and reducing regulation, we would see home priced drop dramatically.

[Editor’s Note: While Utah and the federal government offer some incentives to build higher-density housing, especially around transit , a 2023 Legislative Audit found that most of the land in Utah’s largest cities is currently zoned for single-family detached homes. In the last two years, single-family home construction in Utah did drop more than apartments and townhomes, but the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute attributes the slowdown to a jump in interest rates . ]

Where do you stand on government involvement in reproductive rights? (Rhonda, Iron County)

• Cox: I am unequivocally pro-life and I support efforts to reduce and prevent abortions. I signed HB467 which limits the expansion of abortion clinics in the state.
• Lyman: If, by reproductive rights we are talking about abortion. The question is really, at what point does a fetus become an entity with its own individual rights? I believe that happens at conception and that some level of personhood is due the unborn. That said, I am not a fan of over-criminalizing women who are faced with difficult decisions. The law should be clear, but the consequences of violating the law must consider proportionality.

How do you intend to solve issues with infrastructure in Utah, such as roads and public buildings? (Dylan, county not provided)

• Cox: It’s a simple formula: when investment in infrastructure precedes growth, quality of life stays high. If growth precedes infrastructure, the quality of life goes down every single time. I am a firm believer in maintaining high-quality infrastructure – water, sewer, roads, etc. That’s why our administration has invested so much in infrastructure over the last three and a half years.
• Lyman: Lyman did not provide an answer. However, in a December statement on social media site X, formerly Twitter, Lyman said he was not in favor of growth “simply for the sake of growth,” but believes the government should not necessarily step in to stop growth, either. He advocates for less concentration of resources in the Wasatch Front. His voting record on infrastructure funding has been mixed, with no votes on things like Infrastructure Financing Districts and plans to make way for a Major League Baseball stadium , but yes votes on things like the First Home Investment Act . He says he will support and protect Utah’s energy infrastructure.

What will you do to support public education? (CJ, Salt Lake County)

• Cox: Our children are our most precious asset and that’s why our schools are so important. Parents need and want to be involved in the education of their children. I increased parental choice in how their tax dollars are spent and where their children are educated. Utah's teachers are the best in the nation. We need to ensure they can keep teaching. That's why I signed legislation that secures a $6,000 permanent pay increase for Utah teachers.
• Lyman: School Parent Councils are the key. More power needs to be given to the local schools and less to the school districts and the school boards. If resources were allocated according to the function of local parent councils, parents would be more inclined to keep their kids in public education. Short of that, I support backpack funding where the money follows the student.

Candidates talk about cutting taxes. What taxes would you cut and what do you see as the impact of making those cuts? (Janet, Weber County)

Cox: Prior to my term as governor, the largest tax cut in Utah history was $250 million. During my first four years in office, we have cut taxes by $1.3 billion – the largest tax cut in Utah history. I’m also proud to have led efforts to cut taxes on some of our most vulnerable Utahns including Utah veterans and low-income seniors. Gov. Cox is also supportive of the effort on the ballot this November to eliminate the state sales tax on food. One of the benefits of Utah’s strong economy is that we can return more hard-earned dollars to Utah taxpayers.

[Editor’s Note: KUER was unable to confirm if the largest tax cut in Utah history had been $250 million. ]

Lyman: If Utah would embrace production and extraction, and if we would exercise the jurisdiction that is rightfully ours under our statehood enabling act, we would see a dramatic increase in severance tax that could be used to offset any number of taxes. We should immediately stop taxing Social Security, and we should stop the sales tax on food .

[Editor’s Note: As of 2022, mining and mineral extraction made up more than 10% of the state’s GDP. ]

What does “unity” mean to you? (Avree, Weber County)

• Cox: The chief problem of today isn’t that we’re not united, it’s that we’re often incapable of even talking to each other and debating key issues. This is true in halls of Congress in Washington D.C. and even around family kitchen tables in everyday homes across the country. Thankfully Utah has not succumbed to this same degree of divisiveness, but I worry that we may not be immune forever. My National Governors Association initiative on Disagreeing Better encourages political discourse without shouting down each other. We need to be able to debate issues, maintain our core principles, and not come away hating each other.
• Lyman: Unity is the state of being joined together as a unit rather than as separate parts. We should be united in our adoption of laws, and in our adherence to the constitution, but we should be individual in our choice and accountability.

KUER's Saige Miller, Caroline Ballard and Jim Hill contributed to this guide along with independent fact checker Megan Swann.

This voter guide was produced in collaboration with PBS Utah and America Amplified .