Search results

This chapter enters an old debate on the shape of validation processes in qualitative research. We discuss a reflective research validation framework related to teaching approaches and practices. The majority of investigations in this area draw mainly on indirect observation, semi-structured interviews or the application of questionnaires and inventories. To this extent, only “half-the-story” has been reported. The validation framework here develops a five-part three stage structure, conceptualized as an “iterative-interactive-process,” integrating a set of strategies aimed at the “minimization of invalidity.” The application of the framework is illustrated through a longitudinal study investigating the relationship between classroom questioning practices and teachers’ preferential teaching approaches. Fieldwork in this naturalistic-interpretative research was conducted during four academic years and entailed close collaboration with a group of four university teachers lecturing biology to undergraduates.

The purpose of this study is to identify the types of questions that students ask during the learning of chemistry; discuss the role of students' questions in the process of constructing knowledge, and investigate the relationship between students' questions, approaches to learning, and learning styles.

The questions raised by 100 first‐year chemistry students in Science and Engineering courses at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, were collected. These students were invited to complete Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) and were observed during diverse class activities. Ten of these students were then selected for interview.

The paper finds that the data enable the placement of students at different stages of learning development, at an “acquisition”, “specialisation” or “integration” phase. The ten interviews confirm the results of the LSI survey, and indicate that these students show either “deep” or “surface” approaches to learning, with evidence of a meso approach (intermediate between the two, with characteristics of both). The paper concludes that it is possible to relate students' questions to their learning styles and approaches to learning. Students, who show a surface approach and stay within the acquisition stage, tend to formulate low‐level questions. Students at the other end of this continuum seem disposed to ask higher‐level questions.

The generalisability of the overall study is limited because of the few students involved in the interviews. However, there are some clear pointers here for the relationship between the level of students' question asking and increasing sophistication in learning.

Appreciating the diversity of learners, and their approaches to learning, enhances the possibilities of improving the quality of teaching at this level.

This paper expands on two congruent models that are frequently considered separate and distinct.

We present a critical literature review debating Brazilian research on social and environmental accounting (SEA). The aim of this study is to understand the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in SEA research in Brazil. In particular, we examine the role of hegemony in relation to the co-option of SEA literature and sustainability in the Brazilian context by the logic of development for economic growth in emerging economies. The methodological approach adopts a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The study employs a hermeneutical, rhetorical approach to understand and classify 352 Brazilian research articles on SEA. We employ Brown and Fraser’s (2006) categorizations of SEA literature to help in our analysis: the business case, the stakeholder–accountability approach, and the critical case. We argue that the business case is prominent in Brazilian studies. Second-stage analysis suggests that the major themes under discussion include measurement, consulting, and descriptive approach. We argue that these themes illustrate the degree of influence of the hegemonic politics relevant to emerging economics, as these themes predominantly concern economic growth and a capitalist context. This paper discusses trends and practices in the Brazilian literature on SEA and argues that the focus means that SEA avoids critical debates of the role of capitalist logics in an emerging economy concerning sustainability. We urge the Brazilian academy to understand the implications of its reifying agenda and engage, counter-hegemonically, in a social and political agenda beyond the hegemonic support of a particular set of capitalist interests.