Search results

John E. Elliott has been a professor of economics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles since 1956 when he graduated from Harvard University with a doctorate in economics. In that position at USC, John has distinguished himself not only as a scholar and prolific writer but also as an outstanding teacher. He has received every teaching honour which USC has within its power to bestow. Moreover, John has distinguished himself for his contribution to the well‐being of the faculty and to the advancement of its efforts to preserve and extend the concept of academic freedom. John E. Elliott was born in the year 1931 and the essays which comprise this Festschriftare written in celebration of his sixtieth birthday. The numerous awards he has received for the high quality of his teaching, for his creativity and innovation in the dissemination of knowledge, his record of books published, articles contributed to scholarly journals and book reviews are to be found in his curriculum vitae printed at the end of this work.

John E. Elliott has been a professor of economics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles since 1956 when he graduated from Harvard University with a doctorate in economics. In that position at USC, John has distinguished himself not only as a scholar and prolific writer but also as an outstanding teacher. He has received every teaching honour which USC has within its power to bestow. Moreover, John has distinguished himself for his contribution to the wellbeing of the faculty and to the advancement of its efforts to preserve and extend the concept of academic freedom. John E. Elliott was born in the year 1931 and the essays which comprise this Festschrift are written in celebration of his sixtieth birthday. The numerous awards he has received for the high quality of his teaching, for his creativity and innovation in the dissemination of knowledge, his record of books published, articles contributed to scholarly journals, and book reviews, are to be found in his curriculum vitae printed at the end of this work.

The purpose of this paper is to articulate criteria for assessing the quality of lesson and learning studies as forms of practice-based educational action research that are grounded in the practical experience of those engaged in such research.

The paper explores the implications of Stake and Schwandt’s distinction between quality as measured and quality as experienced for assessing lesson and learning studies in higher education contexts, where “standards templates” are increasingly used to measure “quality”. Such templates it is claimed distance research from the action context of teachers’ work. Previously published work, in which the author distils criteria for good educational action research from his own narratives of experience, is then summarised as a basis for conceptualising lesson study as good action research. This poses the issue of whether the use of learning theories to inform lesson study distorts their quality by distancing them from action. The author argues that this does not apply to lesson studies that are informed by Marton and Booth’s theory of variation. In doing so he distils a set of experience-based quality criteria for assessing learning studies, and demonstrates a high degree of congruence between the pedagogical implications of variation theory and Stenhouse’s idea of “teachers as researchers”.

A set of experience-based quality criteria are distilled for assessing what counts as a high-quality learning study report.

The paper creates an alternative view of the relationship between educational research and practice to that which currently dominates academic discourse.

The purpose of this paper is to discern and discuss links and connections between the ideas and insights contained in the articles published in Issue 6.2, in a way which portrays the key features of lesson study in an international context, its conceptual relationship with the ideas of Lawrence Stenhouse, and its analytic potential to effect pedagogical transformation in a global context.

To create a basis for a fruitful discussion about the critical features of Lesson and Learning Studies as it globalises between readers and the authors of the eight texts published, three of which are authored by practicing school teachers.

The author pinpoints four critical implementation issues that should provide a focus for further deliberation about how to realise the potential of lesson and learning studies for improving the quality of teaching and learning in educational institutions. These are: developing methods of analysis that disrupt and challenge the cultural scripts that shape teaching and learning in educational institutions; developing conditions and support systems that enable teachers not only to develop their practice through lesson and learning study, but also to participate in the development of theories that can powerfully inform such study; creating sustainable programmes of high-quality lesson and learning studies in educational institutions when they may stand in a state of tension with the prevailing organisational culture; and exploring the potential of creative methodological mixes, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods, for improving the quality of teaching and learning through lesson and learning study.

This editorial review provides a criterial framework for evaluating the quality of programmes of lesson and learning studies in educational institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to pull together articles published in the journal over the last five years in terms of their relevance to the main themes and issues that have shaped its development.

The idea is that the paper enables teachers and researchers in schools and higher education institutions to access a substantial and unique collection of lesson and learning studies, and articles about the theoretical and methodological issues they raise, in the context of a rapidly globalising phenomenon.

The paper sets a framework for evaluating the growth and development of lesson studies as a form of practice-based teacher research.

This paper, authored by the founding chief editor of the IJLLS, establishes conceptual links between the theory and practice of lesson study and the wider field of practice-based pedagogical research.

The new rich of the nineteenth century were not brought up to large expenditures, and preferred the power which investment gave them to the pleasures of immediate consumption. In fact, it was precisely the inequality in the distribution of wealth which made possible those vast accumulations of fixed wealth and of capital improvements which distinguished that age from all others. … The immense accumulations of fixed capital which, to the great benefit of mankind, were built up during the half century before the war, could never have come about in a Society where wealth was divided equitably. [Sic!] — John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919/20; Chap. II, sec. III), “Europe before the War,” “The Psychology of Society.”

Eucken′s paradigm of a “social market economy” provides a framework for a functional free‐market mechanism, which not only accommodates development and change, but which also assures human dignity and freedom. Eucken places special emphasis on the integration of economics with “order” and “justice”. He holds that an unconstrained laissez‐faire economy does not assure a competitive economy but that it will degenerate into monopolistic practices. Eucken formulates his “structural” and “regulating” principles to facilitate a functionally competitive economy with a compatible social policy, to assure greater efficiency and to reduce poverty.

I. Introduction On January 1, 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), who has been described by Andrei Gromyko as a man who “has a nice smile, but he has iron teeth,” (Goldman, 1) gave an address to the people of the United States in which he informed them that the “Soviet people are dedicated to peace — that supreme value equal to the gift of life.” (Gorbachev, 1986(a),5). Gorbachev appealed to all that is good in the American people when he said: