Greinin fjallar annars vegar um þá miklu áherslu sem lögð er á notkun gagna í skólastarfi og hins vegar um það að þau gefi litla leiðsögn í mikilvægum efnum. Umfang og margbreytileiki gagna vex hratt og margir ólíkir heimar gagna sem tengjast menntun eru í þróun. Ljóst er að trúin á nytsemi gagna er sterk bæði hjá alþjóðastofnunum og öðrum sem stýra menntun, enda eru þau oft ómissandi. Lykilspurningin er tvíþætt: Að hvaða marki leiðbeina gögn um setningu markmiða í menntun og um hvað skuli gert í menntakerfum eða í skólastofum? Rök eru færð fyrir því að þótt þau séu nytsamleg dugi þau furðu skammt í þessum tilvikum. Sama á við um rannsóknir sem gegna samt lykilhlutverki í þróun skilnings og hugmynda. Umfjöllun um markmið menntunar ætti að vega þungt í menntun fagfólks og í umræðu um menntun og nauðsynlegt er að hafa hugfast að áhersla á gögn kann að jaðarsetja umræðu um markmið.
In recent years there seems to be an increasing discussion of and emphasis on the use of data in every sphere of life, and certainly in education. The growth and improved availability of data is obvious and questions are raised about its role and impact on life in general, as demonstrated by the speculations presented by Pentland (2019) and Kallinikos (2018) on how data are changing our lives. The paper demonstrates that several different worlds of data are developing in addition to our more traditional worlds of test scores and student social background. We have the big data and AI world (Jóhann Ari Lárusson & White, 2014; Luckin et al., 2016; Williamson, 2017) and the emerging bio-social data world, including brain based education (Youdell & Lindley, 2019). These focus more on the individual student or on accumulated data relating to large groups, which, however, allow individual analysis and thus response to individual students. There are also the large-scale studies run by the OECD and IEA, partly combined in the WIDE data base (Cooper et al., 2009; UNESCO, n.d.). Describing these advances, it is emphasized that the discussion of data has been with us for a long time but seems to be attracting increased attention, apparently for very good reasons. We address the key question of how useful data really are and note that several authors and institutions do not think this is an issue, because of their obvious importance and power. We cite several different sources to underpin this view (Cooper et al., 2009; Custer et al., 2018; World Bank, 2018). We then develop the question by asking what exactly are data good for? Can we do nothing important without them? Moreover, can we do practically everything with them? In particular, in what sense can data guide our policies and actions? We then defend the view that educational aims are based on personal and social values; data may be useful for clarifying their importance, but not be the final arbitrator. Next we go on to discuss the notion of formative evaluation and again claim that the guidance provided by data is limited, even in the well-argued and convincing position taken by Lorrie Shepherd and her colleagues (Shepard, 2018; Shepard et al., 2017). Similarly, the cybernetic model of feedback does not apply well to education; even though it is clear that guidance is valuable, the data do not tell which way to go. Thus, the notion of assessment for learning, formative assessment, may be misleading. This is because even if the intention is that the assessment should serve learning it does so at best indirectly and is thus far less useful than the phrase seems to indicate. Throughout the paper it is emphasised that we do not question the usefulness of data due to their transparency, e.g., as exemplified by their relationship to operational definitions, objectivity and how they invite equity and fairness. Data certainly have their very important place. In the last part of the paper it is suggested that a serious problem with the emphasis on data is that they potentially crowd out important discussion about the aims of education as they tend to define the focus. Several references to important classical and Icelandic texts are noted which should have a dominant place in the professional discourse on education. As an example, two Icelandic authors are discussed for their relevance in this context. Taking this perspective, it is interesting that even when discussing the complicated present and future our young people face, it may well be that classical old ideas may serve us well in deciding where education should take us. In educating our professionals, we must ensure that the balance is not tilted away from the aims and conduct of education in favour of other somewhat less important technical matters.
