Listening to children in the field of education: experience in Wales

Listening to children in the field of education: experience in Wales, (2007) 19 Child and Family Law Quarterly 161-182 pp.161-182 RAE2008

Policy, practice and purpose in the field of education : a critical review

This paper provides a critical review of papers in this special issue on Bourdieu and practice. What is different about this collection is that, in analysing policy and practice through a Bourdieusian lens, the thinking tools of field, disposition (collective and individual), logics of practice and doxa have been mobilised with regard to the social practices of educational policy - its production, circulation and reception. First, these papers illustrate how, as a field, education has its own language, boundaries and power relations informed by particular modes of distinction and legitimation around different forms of capital formation, thus providing explanations for both social mobility and social stratification. Second, this collection foregrounds 'policy as practice' in terms of the social practices involved in the production of policy, the practices involved with the articulation and vernacularisation of policy through the processes of its reception, as well as the intent and effects of policy changing practice. Third, in focusing on specific policy problematics in higher education and schools, teacher professional development, leadership and educational reform, these contributions illustrate multiple methodological approaches as to how Bourdieu's thinking tools can be used to theorise educational policy, change, practice and effects. The value of Bourdieu's work lies on getting past the impasses between divisions between material and cultural analyses, between the materialist and linguistic focus, by talking about social practices, what people are doing, how they are thinking and how they are acting.

The doctorate in education; an inquiry into conditions affecting pursuit of the doctoral degree in the field of education.

Vol. 2 by H. E. Moore, J. H. Russel, and D. G. Ferguson.

Teaching boys in neoliberal and postfeminist times: Feminization and the question of re-masculinization in the education system and policy field

This paper focuses on teaching boys, male teachers and the question of gendered pedagogies in neoliberal and postfeminist times of the proliferation of new forms of capitalism, multi-mediated technologies and the influence of globalization. It illustrates how a politics of re-masculinization and its reconstitution needs to be understood as set against changing economic and social conditions in which gender equity comes to be re-focused on boys as the ‚new disadvantaged‘. This re-framing of gender equity, it is argued, has been fuelled by both a media-inspired backlash discourse about ‚failing boys‘ and a neo-positivist emphasis on numbers derived primarily from standardized testing regimes at both global and national levels. A media-focused analysis of the proliferation of discourses about ‚failing boys‘ vis-a-vis the problem of encroaching feminization in the school system is provided to illuminate how certain truths about the influence of male teachers come to define how the terms of ensuring gender equity are delimited and reduced to a question of gendered pedagogies as grounded in sexed bodies. Historical accounts of the feminization of teaching in the North American context are also provided as a basis for building a more informed understanding of the present, particularly as it relates to the contextualization of policy articulation and enactment regarding the problem of teaching boys. In light of such historically informed and critical media analysis, it is argued that what is needed is a more informed, evidenced based policy articulation of the problem of teaching boys and a more gender sensitive reflection on the politics of masculinities in postfeminist times. (DIPF/Orig.)

Conceptions of teaching with integrity online in higher education: a case in the field of engineering

The viewpoints of academic teaching staff take centre stage in the analysis of the changing conceptions of what it means to act with integrity when teaching online. To teach with integrity in contemporary online-supported environments in higher education is not necessarily to teach the same as if one would in teaching regularly face-to-face in the classroom. The paper argues that to teach with integrity online is to teach differently. With integrity both enhanced and in some respects diminished in teaching online, the apparent contradiction can only be resolved through developing conceptions of what teaching with integrity means in the contemporary world of higher education. Implications are drawn in the context of teaching extended and wholly online units in the field of engineering.

Controversy between curriculum design and curriculum development of online "highly specialized" education in the field of construction

Nowadays, on a global level, the Higher Education System has a complex and broad horizon of curricular tools to use in the teaching and learning process. In addition to these new educational instruments, full of possibilities, we face specific socio-economic conditions that affect in a significantly way the Curriculum Development in certain knowledge areas (areas traditionally built on a methodology based on a physical presence of students in the classroom). Some areas such as Restoration, Rehabilitation or Construction Pathologies, and the construction sector in general, require very defined and particular knowledge that only a small number of experts claim as specialized training. All these aspects condition the teaching methodology performed in a physical classroom at a university campus (the only option used until recent years) and made us consider the integration of online teaching in these areas too. The present work shows the teaching methodology used for the development of two online courses, where we offer distance learning for "highly specialized" formation in the Edification area (an area where traditionally there was only classroom training). At the beginning, both courses were designed by classroom training, but got a really small number of applications due to the specialized topic proposed. Later, we proposed a "Curriculum Redesign" of the contents, offering an online modality, which implied a significant demand both within and outside the university area. A notable feature of this educational experience is the great spectrum opened for attendees of both courses in the online version. This situation improved significantly the "Curriculum Development" for the student and implied an interesting new proposal on the offered contents and materials (what would have been really difficult to get in a face to face classroom). In conclusion, the absence of certain types of specialized contents in the academic university curricula makes essential to raise new methodologies to save the gap in this area through additional training courses as those analyzed in this paper. Thus, our experience opens a debate on the appropriateness of implementing online training in relation to the face to face training in constructive content subjects and, especially, presents a new scheme, not without controversy, for the curriculum design.