Search results

Parts of a recent (1989) Educational Testing Service publication are reprinted here: a report of a comparative survey (by tests) of mathematics and science education among 13‐year‐olds in Canada, Ireland, Korea, Spain, the UK and the USA.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical reflection on ideas that have been published in the Journal of Educational Administration over the last 50 years that present perspectives on the nature of educational administration and its various aspects, that are alternatives to the mainstream systems‐scientific view of educational administration.

The paper employs a standard analytic philosophy methodology with a focus on argument structures found in epistemology. The approach is to argue that the content and structure of administrative theories is shaped significantly by background epistemologies that determine the nature and justification of administrative knowledge

Epistemologies for both the traditional systems‐science approach to educational administration and a range of alternatives are identified and specified, and the most characteristic features of these approaches that follow from their epistemologies are described. The paper permits inferences about theory choice, and what approach is best, based on a discussion of the merits of the different epistemologies.

The principal value of the paper is to classify and demonstrate the most general features of the arguments that have been behind the large‐scale theoretical differences in the field of educational administration.

In recent years, concern has been expressed that emphasis upon scientific and technological progress may have resulted in the relative neglect of the humanities, both in societal culture generally and in preparation for positions of social leadership. At present, the role of the humanities in educational administration preparatory programs is, by and large, negligible. A review of the literature suggests that there are at least three rationales which would support the introduction of humanities content into such programs: (1) to generally “liberalize” the student through broad exposure to humanistic content; (2) to train the administrator in purpose definition and value sensitivity through focused reading of philosophy and literature; and (3) to develop creative capacities in the prospective leader through the study of literature and other arts. It is recommended that attempts should be made to incorporate humanities content into preparatory programs in educational administration, that initial efforts should stress the latter two of the three above rationales, and that the endeavor should be undertaken in a preparatory institution by a three‐man team consisting of a humanities scholar, a professor of educational administration, and a school administrator.

Yahya Altınkurt holds Ph.D. from Anadolu University, Turkey. He is assistant professor at Dumlupınar University Faculty of Education in Kütahya. Dr. Altınkurt's research focuses on strategic planning, organizational justice, organizational citizenship, and leadership in schools. His most recent books include Assessment of Researches of School Administration (2008, Anadolu University Publishing coauthored with E. Ağaoğlu, M. Ceylan, E. Kesim, and T. Madden). Dr. Altınkurt's research has appeared in various journals including Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, Education and Science, Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, International Journal of Human Sciences, Academic Sight.

The purpose of this paper is to uncover similarities and differences among emphasized information literacy (IL) skills for the disciplines of political- and social sciences, economics, educational sciences, law sciences, mathematics, life sciences, history and German studies, based on an analysis of IL teaching materials.

Eight issues of the German language publication series Erfolgreich recherchieren (Succesful Research Strategies) are compared by using a structuring content analysis. The category system is based on the IL standards and performance indicators of the Association of College and Research Libraries (2000), extended with additional categories.

The results, first, suggest that the biggest similarities and differences among the disciplines are found concerning the determination of the nature and extent of the needed information, especially in the area of identifying potential sources of information. Second, some of the disciplines focus more on international sources, whereas others focus on country- and language-specific sources. Third, the criteria to define the appropriate retrieval system differ among the various disciplines. Fourth, approaches to narrow the search results differ among the various disciplines. Fifth, the critical evaluation of sources is addressed in all disciplines but relates to different contexts.

This approach only addresses one book per discipline out of a German language book series. Further research is needed.

This paper is unique in its approach and one of few papers on disciplinary differences in IL perception.

This paper aims to present recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy, providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, reports and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2019.

The paper provides a brief description of all 370 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

The development of a knowledge society in the Arabian Gulf is a nested and contextualized process that relies upon the development of nation-specific knowledge economies and region-wide knowledge cultures. The role of internationally comparative education data and mass education systems in the Gulf as mechanisms for the development of knowledge economies, societies, and cultures are discussed and debated in relation to the unique contextual conditions countries operate within. The role of “big” data and mass education in creating expectations for achievement, accountability, and access is shown to significantly contribute to the development of knowledge societies by providing the infrastructure and capacity for sustainable change, which potentially leads to the institutionalization of knowledge acquisition, exchange, and creation in the Gulf and beyond.

Examines the coherentist project for educational administration of professors Colin Evers and Gabriele Lakomski from a critical and pragmatic perspective. It is argued that Evers and Lakomski really have three projects going: the first project seeks to ground coherence as a solution to the problems of educational administration research upon the history of educational administration inquiry philosophies since the Second World War. The second project attempts to justify the worth of coherency as a research philosophy upon purely logical grounds. A third, and most recent, (practical) project draws upon evidence from leadership practice to prove coherentism’s usefulness for school administration. Concludes that, rather than supporting their post‐positivist philosophic underpinnings, Evers and Lakomski’s third project finds them moving toward a raw pragmatism. Also concludes that coherentism is best redescribed from a pragmatic aesthetic perspective, a point of view that provides a potentially more meaningful way of understanding the relationship of coherentist theorizing and leadership action in contemporary schooling.

The authors tested the efficacy of a team-based instructional leadership intervention designed to increase middle school mathematics and science teachers' use of educational technologies for multiple representations of content to foster students' conceptual understandings. Each school's leadership team comprised an administrator, a technology instructional specialist role, and a mathematics and a science teacher leader.

The authors tested the intervention in a quasi-experimental design with five treatment and five matched comparison schools. Participants included 48 leadership team members and 100 grade 6–8 teachers and their students. The authors analyzed data using two-level, nested multiple regressions to determine the effect of treatment on leaders' practices; leaders' practices on teachers' learning and integration; and teachers' learning and integration on students' learning. Leaders and teachers completed monthly self-reports of practices; students completed pre- and post-tests of knowledge in science and math.

Significant treatment effects at the leader, teacher and student levels establish the efficacy of this team-based approach to school leadership of an educational technology integration innovation. Leaders at treatment schools participated in a significantly higher total frequency and a wider variety of leadership activities, with large effect sizes. Teachers participated in a significantly wider variety of learning modes focused on technology integration and integrated technology significantly more frequently, with a wider variety of technologies, all with moderate effect sizes. Students in treatment schools significantly outperformed students in comparison schools in terms of science achievement but not in mathematics.

The overall sample size is small and the approach to participant recruitment did not allow for randomized assignment to the treatment condition. The authors tested the influence of treatment on leader practices, on teacher practices, and on student achievement. Future work is needed to identify the core components of treatment that influence practice and investigate the causal relationships between specific leaders' practices, teacher practices and student achievement.

This study establishes the efficacy of a replicable approach to developing team-based instructional leaders addressing educational technology. It contributes to the knowledge base about how district leaders and leadership educators might foster school leaders' instructional leadership, and more specifically technology leadership capacity.