Search results

The purpose of this work is to describe the current sociopolitical context and complex consequences surrounding elementary literacy education in one Midwestern US state and consider how power works through language.

Using qualitative methods and critical discourse analysis as a theory and method, surveys and interview data from teachers, administrators and parents, policy documents and other artifacts were analyzed and described to explain the sociopolitical climate.

Using Fairclough (2015) and Gee’s (2015) tools, the authors identified the discourses of deficiency, efficiency and gatekeeping in the data. Foucault’s ideas about governmentality and regimes of truth are used to explain the ways teachers took up the policies and resisted them.

The authors argue that a new testing regime is on the move, and more unity and critique by elementary and secondary teachers and administrators will be important for restoring and sustaining quality literacy instruction and decision-making in all classrooms.

Continued research is needed to understand how particular reading assessments exacerbate and perpetuate the ranking and sorting in schools and the loss and struggle children face when they are denied literacy experiences that validate their lives outside of school and give meaning and purpose to reading in school.

As the reality for secondary education language arts teachers begins to shift to a more restrictive curriculum, a loss of academic freedom and frequent testing, the authors see an opportunity for new professional alliances to form in support of a complex theory of literacy.

This chapter explores connections of the assessment of learning at the programmatic level and the humanitarian mission of higher education. To highlight typical aspects of assessment routines, we examine the experiences and processes of a small department in the college in the United States focusing on two themes: concerns about assessment culture and concerns about assessment data. Assessment of student learning falls under the umbrella of regular faculty work. However, these activities become contradictory if we reflect on assessment as cultural labor discussed through layers of alienation and distribution of labor among part-time, full-time faculty and students. Further, discussing data practices, we question the philosophy of datafication, or tendency to measure any aspect of learning with presumed objectivity, as well other data routines. To address the limitations of assessment from the humanistic point of view we call to develop a dialogue in order to provide opportunities for justice to students, faculty, and data. Such opportunities can emerge from honest discussions of faculty labor in the assessment engagement and reframing assessment as a research process.

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework and a case that delineates the coordinated use of the socio-economic approach to management (SEAM) and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) to facilitate operational change.

This study uses action research and thematic analysis to explore the augmentation of existing process improvement and organizational assessment methodologies in a production environment.

Organizations are under increasing pressure to improve all aspects of business. Project leaders and consultants often follow popular quantitatively oriented protocols like LSS to evaluate explicit operational processes. Including a qualitatively oriented protocol like SEAM expands the project leader’s capability through greater consideration of implicit organizational issues. This paper presents a case where LSS was complemented by SEAM to assess a process that was entangled with several latent organizational dysfunctions.

SEAM and LSS are accepted protocols to facilitate process improvement and organizational change. Pairing the two protocols into a SEAM-LSS model offers the strengths of each approach, while compensating for the limitations of each. The result is a more inclusive change protocol that reduces potential oversights and inefficiencies that could occur if project leaders worked within the purview of only one methodology.

This paper uses action research to propose a model to bring qualitative and quantitative methodologies together into a larger complementary framework to use when evaluating organizational problems and opportunities. This paper aims to stimulate discussion and research that would lead to more robust process improvement protocols.

Over the past two decades, scholars have noted an increasing global convergence in the policy and practice of education that predominantly contains Western ideals of mass schooling serving as a model for national school systems (Bieber & Martens, 2011; Goldthorpe, 1997; Spring, 2008). A number of transnational organizations contribute disproportionately to global educational discourse, particularly the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) through its international comparative performance measure, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This study conducted a critical discourse analysis of the OECD document PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity (OECD, 2013) to examine the ways that PISA and the OECD conceive of educational equity in a global context. Given the growing convergence of global educational policy, the way that transnational educational organizations address equity has crucial implications for the ways that the world intervenes in schooling to promote or diminish equitable outcomes. Analysis revealed that the OECD and the PISA foreground economistic notions of educational equity, which diminishes the role of other factors (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, immigration status, language) that mediate equity in schools. Findings and implications are discussed.

This study aims to examine the role of devices in assessing the social impact of an organization. The study examines the effects of device and analyst expertise on the contents and conclusions of the report.

Six impact reports based on the same data from the same organization were compared to each other, to the charity data and to the devices used. Specific attention is paid to the role of the device’s sociomaterial form and discursive entanglements.

The six reports assessed the impact differently from each other and in ways that were consistent with the devices used. The devices performatively reconfigured the charity in impact reports through a series of omissions and misrepresentations which could be traced to the discourses hardwired into the devices themselves. The devices did not simply present the same impact assessment to different audiences or for different purposes, but (mis)represented the charity in specific ways aligned with the discursive entanglements.

The performativity of sociomaterial impact devices has implications for how researchers approach the study of impact measurement.

In this study, faithful adherence to an impact device led to greater omissions and misrepresentations than less expert impact assessments. Analysts should be supported to identify biases in their devices and be aware of sorts of omissions and misrepresentations that may result. Faithful adherence may not be the mark of rigorous analysis.

Performativity of impact measurement devices is explored with a unique data set.

Current discourses on educational assessment focus on the priority of learning. While this intent is invariably played out in classroom practice, a consideration of the ontological nature of assessment practice opens understandings which show the experiential nature of “being in assessment”. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these issues.

Using interpretive and hermeneutic analyses within a phenomenological inquiry, experiential accounts of the nature of assessment are worked for their emergent and ontological themes.

These stories show the ontological nature of assessment as a matter of being in assessment in an embodied and holistic way.

Importantly, the nature of a teacher's way-of-being matters to assessment practices. Implications exist for teacher educators and teacher education programmes in relation to the priority of experiential stories for understanding assessment practice, the need for re-balancing a concern for professional knowledge and practice with a students’ way of being in assessment, and the pedagogical implications of evoking sensitivities in assessment.

Many states are restructuring their US history state assessments to include written-response assessment items that evaluate students' literacy skills in high-stakes environments. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the addition of an extended-response item to a US history state assessment was associated with an increase in the racial achievement gap.

The theoretical framework included linguistic complexity of standardized assessment items and academic language demand and utilized a difference-in-difference research design.

The findings indicate that the achievement gap between students of color and White students increased when an extended-response assessment item was added to an exclusively multiple-choice item exam and that this increase in the achievement gap may be contributed to a literacy gap.

The continued investigation of how students of color perform on different types of extended-response standardized assessment items. And, the continued investigation of evidenced-based instructional practices that focus on developing students' literacy skills in US history as well as culturally responsive instructional practices.

The knowledge and implementation of literacy instruction and culturally responsive instruction in US history classrooms as well as in preservice teacher education programs and in-service professional development programs.

The current study is one of the first large-scale investigations into the racial achievement gap on US history written-response standardized assessment items and in identifying a literacy gap between students of color and White students on US history written-response state assessment items.

In this chapter, I describe how postmodern perspectives assist me in negotiating my multiple roles and responsibilities as an early childhood teacher educator in an increasingly complex pedagogical and workplace context. In particular, I focus on how postmodern understandings support me in therorizing my practice and envisioning productive possibilities for change. Underpinning the chapter are three interconnecting motifs that imbue my work as teacher educator – reflexivity, hope, and a commitment to transformative change. The chapter concludes with reflections about the potential of postmodern perspectives to enhance the agency of teacher educators and preservice teachers alike.

To provide an understanding of how video recording can be used to mediate university level teacher development for language learning in diverse classrooms.

This study draws on cultural historical activity theory (Engeström, 1999) and the subsequent professional development literature to conceptualize video as a tool for self-reflection and critique to further learning. This chapter outlines how video analysis can be used in inservice teacher education to investigate the micro- and macro-interactions with English learners.

We found that utilizing various forms of analysis on a single video from the classroom can help teachers build connections between the micro and macro processes and implications of language in classrooms with English learners. Additionally, by studying videos of classroom activities, teachers learn how linguistic theories and particular instructional and assessment tools can be implemented in their own classrooms.

Videos can be a powerful tool for teacher educators and professional development experts because they allow for the analysis and reflection of a variety of analytic levels. Additionally, this study provides evidence that videos can be used to anchor otherwise discrete university coursework and bring cohesion and collaboration throughout the curriculum.

The purpose of this paper is to show how and why government discoursal constraints have obstructed the development of viable degree apprenticeships for regulated healthcare professionals working in England and suggests some ways these constraints can now be managed and overcome.

The study uses an analysis of published literature, reviews of government and health professional body policies and regulations and semi-structured interviews recorded with those leading on the development of degree apprenticeships in healthcare-regulated professions.

Once created, a bureaucracy tends to look for ways to control discourse, to sustain itself and to extend its reach. In doing so, fault lines may be exposed which undermine the position of that bureaucracy, but it will continue to control discourses to maintain power over those it requires to act. There is no pedagogical need for End Point Assessment (EPA) to measure the competence of regulated healthcare professionals. The paper produces evidence to show how meeting health professional registration requirements is a sufficient metric for measuring successful degree apprenticeship outcomes.

This paper examined current practices relating to the registered nurse and nursing associate degree apprenticeships only. The validity of EPA for measuring occupational competence should be further investigated.

The NHS and other public service organisations should use these findings to re-examine and challenge the requirements for EPA in degree apprenticeships for all regulated professions.

Understanding how “centering” bureaucracies control discourse in their interests can help those in their orbit find ways to challenge and alter the course of policy.