| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergh, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Kunskapsmätningar
- 2015. - 1
-
Ingår i: Utbildning, makt och politik. - Lund : Studentlitteratur AB. - 9789144076836 ; , s. 163-180
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Elde Mølstad, Christina, et al.
(författare)
-
Douce Infusion: ”Fabriquer” des Enseignants dans la sphère du PISA
- 2020
-
Ingår i: <em>Les politiques de restructuration des professions de l’éducation. Une mise en perspective internationale et comparée.</em>. - Quebec : Presses de l'Université Laval. - 9791037004734
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 6. |
- Elde Mølstad, Christina, et al.
(författare)
-
Scientific Framing of Curriculum Research : Experts or Algorithms?
- 2017
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Mapping research in relation to research interest is a common act of performing a research review. This kind of activity is an important part of being a researcher both to portray the competence of knowing a field and to frame specific research theoretically and analytically. The act of showing belongingness and relationship to different paradigms and thinkers (Kuhn, 1962) or various epistemic cultures (Knorr-Cetina, 1999) has over time been given different forms within the community of research. In relation to the act of framing research by different systematic research strategies we raise questions on: who inhabits and cultivates the field of curriculum research according to different strategies for scientific communication? Our theoretical framework is based on an argument that acknowledge the importance of investigating scientific reasoning (Hacking, 1992) and epistemic cultures (Knorr-Cetina, 1999) for understanding the intellectual organizing of knowledge, and by that exemplify how scientific ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ are constructed and legitimized, which is knowledge perceived as ‘common sense’ (cf. Gramsci 1992) within different scientific fields.We investigate four common systematic research strategies for performing research reviews, most used and reproduced within the community of researchers. We have first the handbooks where experts of a specific field are given the legitimacy to portray a specific field of research; second, the systematic search strategies performed with the help of various databases such as e.g. Web of Science, Scopus or ERIC; third, the investigating act of systematically browsing through research journals of special interest within a specific field, and fourth, the systematic research reviews performed by special institutes set up for performing these tasks, such as e.g. Danish Clearinghouse or EPPI centre, which in turn are used as a source by some researchers for illustrating the findings of more restricted and specific research questions.Focusing on four different forms of performing systematic research reviews we describe, analyze and compare the various forms with regards to:how knowledge of/in a research field is constructed,what kind of research that is selected and privileged In particular, we are interested in the potential movement of research reviews from an act of collective ‘intellectualizing’ among ‘experts’ to an act of ‘technologizing’ dependent on algorithms and terminology embedded in various databases, in which the amount of data is more important in ‘evidence-making’ than the perceived expertise of the source. To put it differently, the databases with their vast aggregation of data, organized by algorithms and terminology, are perceived as the authority and not the authors or the epistemic cultures in which the authors are embedded.We use the field of curriculum research to elaborate on the different forms of research reviews and their consequences for knowledge produced. Within the field of curriculum research, handbooks have had a dominant position in describing the field. Also, explicit research reviews within different journals have been important among researchers in the framing of the field of curriculum. However, in the contemporary, bibliometric analyses grounded in database searches and systematic research review performed by special institutes are more and more employed. MethodDependent on which strategies used by researchers for framing different research fields we especially hypothesize on the importance of epistemic cultures and how these epistemic cultures historically have transported research, and how this is transformed, or even disappeared, with the entrance of various databases. First, we chose the collaborative act of ‘experts’ producing handbooks as an example of ‘intellectualizing’ dependent on that some researchers are given, or have taken, the role of ‘experts’. Second, we perform bibliometric searches, for reason of illuminating variances, by using Web of Science and Scopus as examples of ‘technologizing’, where databases more than individual researchers or research groups have transformed into the epistemic culture per se. Third, we will systematically browsing through research journals within the curriculum research field using explicit research reviews, within different journals (e.g. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Curriculum Inquiry, Educational Reviewer). This has been an important practice among researchers within the field of curriculum and hence it is important to capture this approach for framing the field. Fourth, we will analyze some systematic research reviews from special institutes (e.g. Danish Clearinghouse or EPPI centre) addressing curriculum research questions This has to a growing extent become a regular way to produce research reviews. Consequently, we are in a position to elaborate on how the field of curriculum research is portrayed by using different strategies for framing a research. This is most important for understanding how the field of curriculum research today is reproduced in various research settings.Expected OutcomesThe preliminary results indicate that for example the use of handbooks portrays the curriculum field by mostly internationally well-recognized curriculum theory researchers, with resembling results for the use of review articles. The use of Web of Science and Scopus to map the curriculum field portrays both a broader and a narrower picture of the field, where more subject specific topics are included while some research is excluded as a consequence of the character of the corpus of journals and data in the databases. This leads to a picture of the curriculum field where actors are publishing on topics and journals more loosely connected to the core for what can be called curriculum research, this since subject specific topics are not in the same way highlighted in the handbooks. The findings of the reviews from the institutes are still to be elaborated. However, the findings so far indicate that there are important differences in the way a field is portrayed depending on which approach is applied. In sum, the results indicate that the approaches we apply shape how a field is portrayed, and by that also how a specific research field can be interpreted and understood. This is important knowledge and should have consequences for example in the way we guide PhD candidates for performing a systematic research review, as well as adding to researchers’ knowledge of the complexity and challenge of the task. It also indicates notions on how a research field is framed in the contemporary, is it made by ‘experts’ of the field or by algorithms and database specific terminology, which is situated outside well-recognized epistemic cultures? What are the consequences of this movement from defining frames of a research field among peers into a technologizing of this act?ReferencesGramsci, A. (1992) Prison Notebook. G. Lawrence & Wishart: London.Hacking, I. (1992). 'Style' of historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 23(1), 1-20.Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Science Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.Kuhn, T (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
|
|
| 7. |
- Elde Mølstad, Christina, et al.
(författare)
-
Soft Infusion : Constructing 'Teachers' within the PISA sphere
- 2018. - 1
-
Ingår i: Education policies and the restructuring of the educational profession. - Singapore : Springer. - 9789811082788 - 9789811082795 ; , s. 13-26
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since their inception, international large-scale assessments introduced by the OECD, such as PISA, have been widely discussed and disseminated in various social fields, e.g. policy, research, practice and the media. Administrative and political actors have responded to PISA and taken part in discussions about the results (e.g. Pettersson in Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan. Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2008; Hopmann in European Educational Research Journal 6:109–124, 2007, 2015; Ozga in Fabricating quality in education: data and governance in Europe. Routledge, New York, 2011; Ertl in Oxford Review of Education 32:619–634, 2006; Grek in Journal of Education Policy 24:23–37, 2009).
|
|
| 8. |
- Elde Mølstad, Christina, et al.
(författare)
-
Who Governs the Numbers? : The Framing of Educational Knowledge by TIMSS Research
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Education by the Numbers and the Making of Society. - New York : Taylor & Francis. - 9781138295834 - 9781138295827 ; , s. 166-184
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In contemporary society, different tests of educational performance have been given importance in educational research, policy initiatives and curriculum change as well as in media. Consequently, performance in schools has been increasingly judged on the basis of effective student learning outcomes. One of the most active agencies in performing international comparative tests is the IEA—International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The IEA has a history dating back to the 1950s (for a discussion on the history of the IEA see, e.g., Pettersson, 2014), and since 1995 an international large-scale assessment with the acronym TIMSS repetitively has been launched. TIMSS, together with other tests staged by either the IEA or other international organizations, has gradually transformed into reference points for general economic and social policies (Pettersson, 2014). In this context, the phenomenon of international large-scale assessments (ILSA) are serving a global governance constituted by a specific reasoning (cf. Hacking, 1992) connected to the use of numbers. ILSA research, for example, studies using data or results from TIMSS, is based on numbers constructed for partly governance reasons and is a growing interdisciplinary and increasingly international field of study (Lindblad, Pettersson, & Popkewitz, 2015). Hence, the scientific development of the field is highly relevant to analyze. However, it is surprisingly few educational studies that have made use of the data rapidly accumulating with the development of various databases and software. Given the importance of this numbered educational discourse as a social and scientific practice, we propose that it is crucial to take into account how this discourse is framed through different written formats.
|
|
| 9. |
- Faldet, Ann-Cathrin, et al.
(författare)
-
Jeg, du, meg och deg : Hva kan vi egentligen lære av PISA?
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift. - 0029-2052 .- 1504-2987. ; 103:1, s. 42-52
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- I presentasjonen av PISA-resultatene kan vi se visse mønstre i hvordan debatten konstrueres, og vi kan se visse mønstre i hvordan deltakende aktører opptrer i media og på den politiske og administrative arena (Pettersson, 2008). Studien synliggjør hvordan PISAs rangeringslister fremkaller bestemte handlingsmønstre og rasjonalitet, der rasjonaliteten er basert på en bestemt tankestil (Fleck 1997). Disse strukturelle handlingsmønstrene har vi valgt å benevne for something-else-ism og someone-else-ism, og med det gå bakover i historien for å se hvordan denne situasjonen kunne oppstå, og løfte fram enkelte utfordringer knyttet til disse to fremstilte handlingsmønstrene.
|
|
| 10. |
- Forsberg, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Commodification of Present Swedish Processes : Linking Educational Experiences Over Time and Space
- 2017
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives or purpose. In Sweden and other Nordic countries the formation of educational systems has primarily been an issue for the national state in a rather homogenous society. Today, governance of education is embedded in global movements and a multicultural society influencing the role and function of the state. We will use two empirical cases, based in three recently completed research projects, to illuminate how curriculum and leadership research have worked in tandem to explain and develop both policy and practice. The cases focus on the assessment culture of the Swedish schools and implications of changes in governance for local educational leadership.Perspectives or theoretical framework. In the Swedish curriculum theory tradition, the curriculum has been analyzed as a pedagogical, a political, a practical and research problem. In order to analyze data and develop curriculum and leadership research the central concept of curriculum code (Lundgren 1977) is further elaborated. We pay attention to different levels, actors and contexts in an era dominated by governance, new public management, accountability and international comparative tests. With mass education from preschool to higher education, marketization and an increasing number of stakeholders the complexity of education governance has also increased and curriculum processes have taken new forms. Lundgren elaborated the concepts of steering group, codes and contexts. Codes relate to the purpose, content and method of a curriculum. He raised questions on how the frames were constituted, and identified historically developed curriculum codes manifested in the selection and organization of school knowledge (e.g. Lundgren, 1977). Shifts in codes were related to changed relations between production and reproduction (Lundgren, 1983); neither the purposes of education nor the subject content were taken for granted.Methods. In a recent empirical study, we used questionnaires, interviews and policy texts with analyses grounded in both curriculum theory and leadership research. The empirical base is Sweden from the late 1980s up until today, a highly reform intense period. Findings are presented, focusing especially on governance, leadership and assessment cultures. We include comparative studies and studies covering all 290 Swedish municipalities using both surveys and case studies.Results and/or substantiated conclusions. By using empirical findings from projects relating curriculum activities taking place on different levels with a focus on interlinked curriculum processes, we discuss these processes and further develop contemporary curriculum theory. We address conceptual issues on curriculum making including educational leadership as practice and actors. By linking research on curriculum theory with leadership studies, it is possible to attend to these problems simultaneously.Scientific or scholarly significance. In conclusion, this paper is scanning new horizons for how to develop curriculum theory further as a relational practice appearing in various contexts. Specifically, we posit a new code to explain the contemporary situation for curriculum-leadership.
|
|
