Evidence gaps affecting global citizenship education

Failure in relation to the available evidence may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include averages concealing distribution, changes in definition presented as changes in performance, small differences overstated, and proxy measures treated as direct outcomes. For global citizenship education, materiality depends on the consequence and extent of an exception, not only on how often it appears in sampled records.

Evidence base for evidence gaps affecting global citizenship education

Implementation of global citizenship education should be organised around a decision that can be tested. For the available evidence, reported averages should be accompanied by sufficient distributional information to identify material differences between learner groups, locations and forms of provision.

Its relevance to the available evidence should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. When examining global citizenship education, any consequential application should rest on evidence suited to the affected scope, not on the existence of an international development alone.

In examining evidence gaps affecting global citizenship education, analysis should make its decision rule explicit.

• Analyse missing information.
• Define the decision the indicator will inform.
• Disaggregate material results before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.
• Avoid causal claims unsupported by the design.
• Report uncertainty and revisions before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.

Controls for evidence gaps affecting global citizenship education

Care is required in drawing conclusions about global citizenship education. Across the defined scope, material limitations should be stated with the finding presented to decision-makers and affected learners.

Relevant evidence for the available evidence will normally include triangulation with administrative and qualitative evidence, indicator definitions and metadata, disaggregated results, population and sampling information, and revision and comparability records. The record for global citizenship education should retain disagreement between sources until its cause and effect are understood.

In the context of global citizenship education, the evidential trail should allow an affected decision to be identified, examined and corrected. For comparative analysis, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. Historical decisions concerning global citizenship education should be assessed against the information then available, with later amendments separately dated and explained.

Review of evidence gaps affecting global citizenship education

Authorities and providers reviewing global citizenship education should proceed in a defined sequence. Review of the measure should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions.

Publication of findings on global citizenship education should distinguish observed values, estimates and interpretation.

• Which evidence establishes operation?
• What outcome is intended?
• Where do exceptions occur?
• Who controls each stage?
• What action is required by the finding?

Implications for evidence gaps affecting global citizenship education

For global citizenship education, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance.

Public reporting on global citizenship education should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Across the defined scope, if definitions, coverage or evidence alter an earlier conclusion, the reason should be stated so that revision is not mistaken for changed performance.