The link between policy and practice in science education : the role of research

Policy has been a much neglected area for research in science education. In their neglect of policy studies, researchers have maintained an ongoing naivete about the politics of science education. In doing so, they often overestimate the implications of their research findings about practice and ignore the interplay between the stakeholders beyond and in-school who determine the nature of the curriculum for science education and its enacted character. Policies for education (and science education in particular) always involve authority and values, both of which raise sets of fascinating questions for research. The location of authority for science education differs across educational systems in ways that affect the role teachers are expected to play. Policies very often value some groups in society over others, as the long history of attempts to provide science for all students testifies. As research on teaching/learning science identifies pedagogies that have widespread effectiveness, the policy issue of mandating these becomes important. Illustrations of successful policy to practice suggest that establishing conditions that will facilitate the intended implementation is critically important. The responsibility of researchers for critiquing and establishing policy for improving the practice of science education is discussed, together with the role research associations could play if they are to claim their place as key stakeholders in science education.

My "middle way" media studies

I would argue that the problems that contemporary capitalism gives rise to are not the result of the classic exercise of power and hegemony characteristic of the monopoly phase of capitalism but of the “creative destruction” of such a phase. Schumpeter’s famous phrase is reflective of Lash and Urry’s (1987) notion of “disorganised capitalism” or of Robert Reich’s (2007) claim that large corporations have significantly less power now than three decades ago. The consequence is that there is a need to explore an economic “middle way” in debates about the narrative of the relationship between culture and economy, between the Scylla of total explanatory political economy and the Charybdis of tedium-by-case-study. This involves a Schumpeterian emphasis on entrepreneurial or enterprise economics (Cunningham, Banks, and Potts 2008). Schumpeter, in 1962, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, argued that Marx had “no adequate theory of enterprise” and failed to “distinguish the entrepreneur from the capitalist” (quoted in McCraw 2007: 349). Schumpeter, his most recent biographer, Thomas McCraw, “told of capitalism in the way most people experience it: as consumer desires aroused by endless advertising; as forcible jolts up and down the social pecking order; as goals reached, shattered, altered, then reached once more as people try, try again.” He knew that “creative destruction fosters economic growth but also that it undercuts cherished human values” (p. 6). Schumpeter’s most recent biographer, Thomas McCraw, says that he elucidated what capitalism “really feels like” (as quoted in McCraw 2007: 349, 6).

Identity and disciplinarity : Multi-disciplinary student cohorts in Higher Education [Abstract]

This paper will describe a research project that examines the implications of multidisciplinary student cohorts on teaching and learning within undergraduate and postgraduate units in higher education. Whist students generally specialise in one discipline, it is also common that, at some point during their degree, they will choose to undertake subjects that are outside their specialist area. Students may choose a multidisciplinary learning experience either out of interest or because the subject is seen as complementary to their core discipline. When the lens of identity is applied to the multi-disciplinary cohorts in undergraduate and postgraduate units, it assists in identifying learning needs. The nature of disciplinarity, and the impact it has on students’ academic identity, presents challenges to both students and teachers when they engage in teaching and learning, impacting on curriculum design, assessment practices and teaching delivery strategies (Winberg, 2008). This project aims to identify the barriers that exist to effective teaching and learning in units that have multidisciplinary student cohorts. It will identify the particular needs of students in multidisciplinary student cohorts and determine a teaching and learning model that meets the needs of such cohorts. References Becher, T. & Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of the discipline. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Light, G. & Cox, R. (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education: A reflective professional. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (2), 135-46. Neumann, R., Parry, S. & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417. Taylor, P.G. (1999) Making Sense of Academic Life: Academics, Universities and Change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Winberg, C. (2008). Teaching engineering/engineering teaching: interdisciplinary collaboration and the construction of academic identities. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 353 - 367.