List 229: Irish and English Dendrochronology

These results cover dating undertaken since the last published list of dated building from Ireland (Brown (2002)); one English church building is also included in the list. Thanks are due to the owners of the buildings and especially to everyone who assisted in taking of the samples: Phil Barrett, Sapphire Mussen, Charles Lyons, Jon Pilcher and Mike Baillie, Amanda Pedlow, Caimin O’Brien and Martin Timoney. Most of the descriptions of the buildings are taken from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage http://www.buildingofi reland.ie/. The correlation values were generated by CROSS84 (Munro, 1984), which provides a signifi cance level for the date to be correct; *** (extremely signifi cant), ** (very signifi cant), * (signifi cant), nsm (not signifi cant). Estimated felling date ranges are based on the Belfast sapwood estimate of 32 ± 9 years. Date ranges have been calculated by adding and subtracting 9 years from the calculated estimated felling dates. Timbers from the following buildings could not be dated. Cork: St Finbarre’s Cathedral (W 675 715); Dublin: Christchurch Cathedral (O 152 341); Galway: Cloghan Castle (M 972 119); Kilkenny: Rothe House (S 506 563); Offaly: Boveen House (S 075 956); Waterford: Christchurch Cathedral (S 616 121). Generally only single oak samples were recovered from these structures. References: D.Brown, ‘Dendrochronological dating building from Ireland’, VA 33 (2002), 71–3; M. Munro, ‘An improved algorithm for crossdating tree-ring series’, Tree-Ring Bulletin 44 (1984), 17–27.

Can they go it alone? Addressing criticisms of coteaching.

This paper responds to Wassell and LaVan’s paper on the transition from a preservice coteaching experience to independent teaching as a beginning inservice teacher. Wassell and LaVan describe coteaching as an alternative to traditional teaching. In our response, we argue that coteaching can also be applied alongside independent teaching in preservice courses, as opposed to an alternative to independent teaching, which has been shown to alleviate some of the transition issues described by Wassell and LaVan. We then present a critical discussion of different models and vocabularies of coteaching which apply in different sociocultural settings to expand the concept of coteaching. We attempt to extend Wassell and LaVan’s use of Guba and Lincoln’s (Fourth generation evaluation, 1989) authenticity criteria from the research methodology towards considering the criteria also as a framework for coteaching as practice for preservice and cooperating teachers. Finally, we reflect on the role of critical ethnography in Wassell and LaVan’s study in terms of the researchers’ intervention and whether improvements in the transition can be effectively introduced which do not require such intervention. We conclude our discussion with some suggestions to take forward this important work.

Situating relational ontology and transformative activist stance within the ‘everyday’ practice of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue.

This paper attempts to advance the thinking in Stetsenko’s paper by situating the concepts of relational ontology and transformative activist stance in the context of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. In so doing, we hope to make Stetsenko’s ideas more operational in terms of access and application by researchers, teachers, policy makers and other stakeholders in education. Stetsenko argues that moving from relational ontology to a transformative activist stance can be considered as moving from participation to contribution. When this model was applied to coteaching and cogenerative dialogue, it was apparent that the coteaching and cogenerative dialogue moved further, from contribution to shared contribution, adding even greater potential for transformation. The paper also discusses the use of cultural historical activity theory in articulating the relationships, dynamics and interpretations of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in relation to the wider context of their application.

Sharing Classes between Separate Schools: a mechanism for improving inter-group relations in Northern Ireland?

One manifestation of division and the history of conflict in Northern Ireland is the parallel education system that exists for Protestants and Catholics. Although recent decades have seen some advances in the promotion of integrated education, around 95% of children continue to attend schools separated on ethno-religious lines. In 2007 a programme for sharing education was established. Underpinned by intergroup contact theory, and reflecting educational priorities shared by all school sectors, the programme seeks to offer children from different denominational schools an opportunity to engage with each other on a sustained basis. In this article the authors adopt a quantitative approach to examining the impact of participation in the Sharing Education Programme on a range of outcomes (out-group attitudes, positive action tendencies and out-group trust) via, first, intergroup contact (cross-group friendships) and, second, intergroup anxiety. Their findings confirm the value of contact as a mechanism for promoting more harmonious relationships, and affirm the Sharing Education Programme as an initiative that can help promote social cohesion in a society that remains deeply divided.