Search

Drawing on a historical case study, this article focuses on the ways in which the Greek Government (2015-2019), through involving the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), managed to modify the education conditionalities laid down by the third Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) negotiated with the 'Institutions' (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund). Using documentary analysis and interviews with top-ranking national educational policy actors, an empirical account is presented of the prolonged encounter between Greek policy-makers, SAP conditionalities, and the policy work of the OECD. The analysis traces the tensions within and between the positions of national and external policy actors as negotiations moved towards a tactical settlement where all sides achieved partial convergence without reaching principled agreement. It reflects on the relevance of the experience of Greece to understandings of global/national relations in the development of educational policy.

It is widely assumed that researchers must normally secure informed consent from participants if research is to be ethical. But what exactly are people being asked to consent to? Most obviously, it is to supplying, or providing access to, data; but are they also agreeing that this data can be used in any way relevant to the research, or do they retain a right to control its use? A third question is: are they consenting to themselves being included within the focus of study, so that asking for consent amounts to assigning a right not to be researched? A further question concerns whether there can be group rights not to supply data, to control the use of data, and/or not to be researched? Such claims have been made by spokespersons for the disabled, indigenous groups, commercial organisations, governments, and religious cults. Justifications for these various rights usually appeal to the principle of autonomy, in one form or another. Yet this principle, being universal, must also apply to researchers themselves. So, does this imply that researchers have a right to carry out research? As this makes clear, there are conflicting rights-claims around research. This paper will examine these and their implications.

Drawing on a historical case study, this article focuses on the ways in which the Greek Government (2015–2019), through involving the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), managed to modify the education conditionalities laid down by the third Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) negotiated with the 'Institutions' (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund). Using documentary analysis and interviews with top-ranking national educational policy actors, an empirical account is presented of the prolonged encounter between Greek policy-makers, SAP conditionalities, and the policy work of the OECD. The analysis traces the tensions within and between the positions of national and external policy actors as negotiations moved towards a tactical settlement where all sides achieved partial convergence without reaching principled agreement. It reflects on the relevance of the experience of Greece to understandings of global/national relations in the development of educational policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I examine the nature of primary science expertise using an ethnographic and sociocultural approach and a theoretical analysis that conceptualises educational practice in terms of the resolution of dilemmas. Using data from an in-depth investigation of the perspective and practice of a single teacher, I discuss some of the "dilemmas" faced by this expert science practitioner as she tries to find the most successful ways for facilitating children's learning. The dilemmas I discuss here describe tensions around how scientific knowledge should be presented to children, how children learn science and modes of pedagogy. I show that while some of these dilemmas arise from a conflict between the teacher's own ideals and the external requirements placed upon her, others reflect important tensions within her own values and commitments. I argue that a language of dilemmas allows us to understand pedagogic practice as "dynamic" in character, as frequently involving difficult choices, in which ideals are traded off against one another. This dilemmatic perspective contrasts sharply both with those views of primary science teaching that treat it as the authoritative transmission of basic skills or facts and those that treat it as the acting out of a coherent ideology.

This article outlines the main education reforms that have taken place in Greece from the 1960s until the present. The author discusses how the direction of these reforms has been influenced not only by "global" pressures for "modernization" but also by the distinctive socio-cultural Greek context. The conclusion stresses that despite the various attempts to reform the Greek education system key issues about the purposes of education provision remain unresolved. (Contains 4 notes.)

There are some important ambiguities in discussions about the implications of "evidence-based practice", both for educational research and for the work of teachers. In this paper we explore several of these through examining the Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) study--part of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP), a major UK research initiative that is explicitly committed to improving the contribution of educational research to policymaking and practice. The field of science education is in some ways a critical case, given that the notion of evidence-based practice treats scientific research as a privileged source of evidence. We examine the assumptions built into the EPSE study, and how these relate to the classical medical model of evidence-based practice, and to some other approaches to educational research that are concerned with closing the gap with practice. (Contains 14 notes.)

In their rejoinder to our article about their work on evidence-based science education, Millar "et al." (2008) claim that we misrepresented their position, and that our argument was false or unclear in key respects. In this brief reply we argue that their criticisms are misdirected, and that they fail to engage in the sort of dialogue that is necessary if the important problems surrounding the relationship between research and educational practice are to be resolved.

While the use of ethnographic and qualitative research methods has spread across many fields of educational inquiry, until recently this has had little impact on research in science education. However, there is currently a methodological shift taking place in this area, prompted by the rise of a sociocultural perspective on cognition, which sees knowledge as tied to action, and treats expertise as being defined by relevant communities of practice. There is a close affinity between this perspective and ethnography. In this paper, I discuss a recent ethnographic investigation of primary science expertise guided by this perspective: an in-depth study of the perspective and practice of a single teacher. I focus on some of the problems involved in this study, arising from the divergent orientations of the researcher and the practitioner in the context of their collaboration. These difficulties threatened the completion of the study, but in the end were negotiated successfully. However, they raise important questions about the relationship between ethnographer and informant in the context of ethnographic research.

In recent years, increasing emphasis has come to be placed, both by researchers and by policy-makers, on the adequacy of primary teachers' subject knowledge of science. Within research, this emphasis has been linked to the rise of constructivist ideas about the significance of establishing children's prior conceptions of scientific concepts for effective teaching. In this article, I examine two constructivist approaches to teachers' adequacy of subject knowledge within UK research on primary science education. In each case, I provide a critique of the assumptions they make about the nature of knowledge and how it develops. I do this from a sociocultural perspective, which views knowledge and learning as necessarily situated within communities of practice. My aim is to assess the implications of this perspective for understanding teachers' adequacy of subject knowledge. (Contains 4 notes.)

In recent years much emphasis has been placed, both by researchers and by policy-makers, on the role that subject knowledge plays in the classroom practice of primary teachers. Within UK research on primary science education, this emphasis is often linked with constructivist ideas about effective teaching. In this article, I explore the implications of applying a rather different approach, based on sociocultural theories of cognition and learning. These stress the situated nature of knowledge and the complex interdependence of learning and action. Above all, these perspectives treat expertise as defined in action by relevant communities of practice. Thus, in this article, I draw upon data from an in-depth qualitative case study of one primary science teacher who is recognized in her local environment, and more widely, as an expert practitioner. I examine her views about subject knowledge, and her beliefs about the learning and teaching of science. I also investigate her practice. One outcome of this study is the conclusion that teacher expertise is "eclectic" in character, drawing on a variety of pedagogical strategies and theories of learning in dealing with the contingent situations faced in the classroom. I conclude by suggesting that this aspect of primary science practice is particularly important today, given that currently influential views configure teaching in terms of abstract standards concerned with level of subject and pedagogical knowledge.

It is widely assumed that researchers must normally secure informed consent from participants if research is to be ethical. But what exactly are people being asked to consent to? Most obviously, it is to supplying, or providing access to, data; but are they also agreeing that this data can be used in any way relevant to the research, or do they retain a right to control its use? A third question is: are they consenting to themselves being included within the focus of study, so that asking for consent amounts to assigning a rightnot to be researched? A further question concerns whether there can be group rights not to supply data, to control the use of data, and/or not to be researched? Such claims have been made by spokespersons for the disabled, indigenous groups, commercial organisations, governments, and religious cults. Justifications for these various rights usually appeal to the principle of autonomy, in one form or another. Yet this principle, being universal, must also apply to researchers themselves. So, does this imply that researchers have a right to carry out research? As this makes clear, there are conflicting rights-claims around research. This paper will examine these and their implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]