Search results

In this paper, I demonstrate an alternative explanation to the development of the American electricity industry. I propose a social embeddedness approach (Granovetter, 1985, 1992) to interpret why the American electricity industry appears the way it does today, and start by addressing the following questions: Why is the generating dynamo located in well‐connected central stations rather than in isolated stations? Why does not every manufacturing firm, hospital, school, or even household operate its own generating equipment? Why do we use incandescent lamps rather than arc lamps or gas lamps for lighting? At the end of the nineteenth century, the first era of the electricity industry, all these technical as well as organizational forms were indeed possible alternatives. The centralized systems we see today comprise integrated, urban, central station firms which produce and sell electricity to users within a monopolized territory. Yet there were visions of a more decentralized electricity industry. For instance, a geographically decentralized system might have dispersed small systems based around an isolated or neighborhood generating dynamo; or a functionally decentralized system which included firms solely generating and transmitting the power, and selling the power to locally‐owned distribution firms (McGuire, Granovetter, and Schwartz, forthcoming). Similarly, the incandescent lamp was not the only illuminating device available at that time. The arc lamp was more suitable for large‐space lighting than incandescent lamps; and the second‐generation gas lamp ‐ Welsbach mantle lamp ‐ was much cheaper than the incandescent electric light and nearly as good in quality (Passer, 1953:196–197).

Using an exploratory multi-case study approach, we examined student perceptions of leadership through analysis of introductory discussion board forums in online undergraduate and graduate leadership courses to formulate leadership student personas. A review of related literature reveals that leadership’s broad application results in a vast array of interests and motivations related to pursuit of a leadership degree. To that end, development of student personas provides leadership program administrators and faculty with a better understanding of their needs and characteristics. In this application paper, we will share qualitative data compiled from four online leadership courses. Our preliminary findings identified data-driven personas that showcase how leadership students with varying backgrounds and aspirations envision knowing our leadership students, as well as recommending future research that can help advance the field of leadership education.

The Anthropocene is commonly explained as a current epoch that began when human activities started bearing a major impact on the natural world. As an area of study, it has a logical disciplinary home, addressed widely in geology (Gibbard & Walker, 2014). However, it is also gaining traction in other disciplines, especially the social sciences (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2017). In most accounts, it involves examining how the relationship between humans and the planet has changed and what can be done to monitor the balance.

Sustainability represents a more familiar challenge and discussion area in higher education. Nevertheless, two areas of questioning about it endure: what is sustainability and should students be taught about it? One established account is the “three-pillar model” which presents sustainability as an intersection of economic, social, and environmental issues (Brundtland Report, 1987). There are, however, different views as to how sustainability curriculum change should be implemented (Hopkinson, Hughes, & Layer, 2008; Stubbs & Schapper, 2011) but students appear to want sustainability better represented in their institutions (Drayson, Bone, Agombar, & Kemp, 2013).

This chapter considers whether the relatively recent focus on the Anthropocene can help us develop sustainability teaching in higher education. My project draws on desk-based research, comprising a review of academic sources on the Anthropocene and on sustainability, as well as teaching materials on these areas. The author also draws on five conversations with staff involved in teaching and researching the Anthropocene.

The outcomes point to some support for further teaching about the Anthropocene and in a way which links to sustainability, and the author argues that as a concept and proposition, the Anthropocene has important potential for informing future sustainability teaching. However, the relationship between the Anthropocene and sustainability needs exploring further in follow-up research with both staff and learners.

Purpose – This study explored agentive and sustainable teacher development as part of literacy coaching that employed a reflective framework and video with an apprenticeship stance. This chapter examines principles of apprenticeship and the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model to analyze the transition of responsibility for reflection from coach to teacher.

Design/methodology/approach – An earlier seven-month multiple case study of literacy coaching with four secondary level teachers revealed seven joint actions (i.e., revoice, build, ask questions to develop understanding, ask dissonant questions, suggest, disagree, reconceptualize) and four categories of joint action (i.e., directive/consonant, directive/dissonant, responsive/consonant, and responsive/dissonant) within a model of joint action for literacy coaching (Reichenberg, 2018). This analysis mapped those joint actions onto the GRR model (McVee, Shanahan, Hayden, Boyd, & Pearson, 2018; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). This chapter explicates reasoning for variability in responsibility and the potential relationship between variability and the development of teachers’ thinking and action through in-depth analysis of a single coaching session. Examples from other teachers’ coaching sessions are included.

Findings – Synthesis of the two models shows that joint actions initiated by the coach that were directive/dissonant fell on the left side of the GRR model with primary coach responsibility. Actions initiated by the coach that were classified as directive/consonant came next on the journey toward the middle, followed by responsive/dissonant actions. Responsive/consonant actions encompassed the middle region of shared responsibility. The same actions initiated by the teacher mirrored this progression. Principles of apprenticeship in this gradual release of responsibility highlight the bi-directionality of expertise in situated action informed by historical and dynamic context (Mercer, 2008). Evidence of teachers’ growing agency and sustainability were present in joint actions they initiated within the context of literacy coaching.

Research limitations/implications – Analysis of the actions of a literacy coach and teacher as directive, responsive, consonant, and dissonant add complexity to the discussion about how to transfer responsibility for reflection from coaches to teachers. Awareness of how joint actions map onto the GRR model can inform coaches’ and teachers’ decisions as they thoughtfully move toward greater teacher agency within coaching interaction.

Practical implications – The reflective framework employed in this study is applicable to a variety of settings such as instructional coaching across the disciplines, coaching by in-service literacy specialists, and the preparation of pre-service literacy coaches. The model of joint action for analyzing coaching interaction could be used by in-service literacy coaches, pre-service literacy coaches, and teachers who are being coached.

Originality/value – This chapter analyzes the transition of responsibility for reflection from coach to teacher. Principles of both the GRR model and apprenticeship theory provide a theoretical explanation for how these teachers achieved greater agency and sustainable development of a reflective stance.

It has often been said that a great part of the strength of Aslib lies in the fact that it brings together those whose experience has been gained in many widely differing fields but who have a common interest in the means by which information may be collected and disseminated to the greatest advantage. Lists of its members have, therefore, a more than ordinary value since they present, in miniature, a cross‐section of institutions and individuals who share this special interest.

Current issues of Publishers' Weekly are reporting serious shortages of paper, binders board, cloth, and other essential book manufacturing materials. Let us assure you these shortages are very real and quite severe.