| 1. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Bralower, Timothy, et al.
(författare)
-
Origin of a global carbonate layer deposited in the aftermath of the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary impact
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Earth and Planetary Science Letters. - Amsterdam : Elsevier. - 0012-821X .- 1385-013X. ; 548
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Microcrystalline calcite (micrite) dominates the sedimentary record of the aftermath of the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) impact at 31 sites globally, with records ranging from the deep ocean to the Chicxulub impact crater, over intervals ranging from a few centimeters to more than seventeen meters. This micrite-rich layer provides important information about the chemistry and biology of the oceans after the impact. Detailed high-resolution scanning electron microscopy demonstrates that the layer contains abundant calcite crystals in the micron size range with a variety of forms. Crystals are often constructed of delicate, oriented agglomerates of sub-micrometer mesocrystals indicative of rapid precipitation. We compare the form of crystals with natural and experimental calcite to shed light on their origin. Close to the crater, a significant part of the micrite may derive from the initial backreaction of CaO vaporized during impact. In more distal sites, simple interlocking rhombohedral crystals resemble calcite precipitated from solution. Globally, we found unique calcite crystals associated with fossilized extracellular materials that strikingly resemble calcite precipitated by various types of bacteria in natural and laboratory settings. The micrite-rich layer contains abundant bacterial and eukaryotic algal biomarkers and most likely represents global microbial blooms initiated within millennia of the K–Pg mass extinction. Cyanobacteria and non-haptophyte microalgae likely proliferated as dominant primary producers in cold immediate post-impact environments. As surface-water saturation state rose over the following millennia due to the loss of eukaryotic carbonate producers and continuing river input of alkalinity, “whitings” induced by cyanobacteria replaced calcareous nannoplankton as major carbonate producers. We postulate that the blooms grew in supersaturated surface waters as evidenced by crystals that resemble calcite precipitates from solution. The microbial biomass may have served as a food source enabling survival of a portion of the marine biota, ultimately including life on the deep seafloor. Although the dominance of cyanobacterial and algal photosynthesis would have weakened the biological pump, it still would have removed sufficient nutrients from surface waters thus conditioning the ocean for the recovery of biota at highertrophic levels.
|
|
| 3. |
- Forssten Seiser, Anette, 1965-, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of critical praxis through professional learning : Enablers and constraints
- 2023
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- General description on reserach questions, objectives and theoretical framworkProfessional learning is vital for the development of educators and for the development of a strong educational system (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). This research project investigates the development of critical praxis (reflection and action for positive change) through a professional development program. Drawing on the work of Freire, and using the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014), the research considers the professional learning of English speaking teachers and school leaders involved in a long-term professional development program in Hong Kong. In a previous article based on three research projects across two countries and three different education sectors (Francisco, Forssten Seiser & Grice 2021), we identified trust, power and agency as the key themes impacting on the development of critical praxis. We continue to explore these themes in this work. According to Aristotle, praxis is a morally committed action in which, and through which, values are given practical expression (Carr, 2009). Kemmis and Smith (2008) consider praxis as ‘what people do when they take into account all the circumstances and exigencies that confront them at a particular moment and then, taking the broadest view they can of what is best to do, they act’ (p. 4). Mahon et al. (2020) argue that educational praxis is forming, self-forming and transforming. It is forming in the sense that educators are involved in supporting the formation of people and of society (Kemmis et al. 2014). It is self-forming in that educators are reflexive and reflective in their praxis informed actions. It is transforming in that educators with a praxis informed approach will transform people and sites through their actions. The research is framed and analysed using the theory of practice architectures (TPA). This theory identifies practice as “a socially established cooperative human activity involving utterances and forms of understandings (sayings), modes of action (doings), and ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings) that ‘hang together’ in characteristic ways in a distinctive ‘project’” (Mahon et al. 2017, p 7-8). Practices are enabled and constrained by site-based arrangements: the practice architectures. The research discussed in this presentation explores how educators develop critical praxis (reflection and action for positive change) during formal professional learning experiences and in informal spaces, and the factors that enable and constrain its development. Specific research questions are: what practice architectures enabled and constrained the development critical praxis in a long-term professional learning program; and in what ways is the professional learning forming, self-forming and transforming? Methods/methodologyUsing a qualitative research approach, we invited convenors and participants involved in a large professional learning program to participate in the research. The professional development program was offered to teachers and leaders across more than twenty English speaking schools in Hong Kong. The authors of this paper were not involved in providing the professional development program. Data collection includes audio/video recording of professional learning sessions for the group; interviews with the course convenors of the program; and interviews with individuals in the group. The interviews use a combination of photo elicitation (IbanNez, 2004) and elements of an ‘interview to the double’ (Nicolini, 2009) process. Participants are asked to bring five photographs to the interviews that they felt represented their learning throughout the professional development program. For the purposes of preparedness and transparency, indicative questions which form the basis of the interviews will be shared with the participants prior to the interview taking place to reduce potential stress (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The content is within the boundaries of the participants’ professional roles and confined to their experience as an educator. Interviews will be transcribed and the transcriptions provided to participants for comment and/or change prior to being incorporated with other data from analysis. Reputation risk of schools is minimised by schools and individuals not being named or identifiable. Analysis will be undertaken in two stages. Firstly, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) in relation to the research questions. This will be followed by analysis using the theory of practice architectures.Expected outcomes/resultsBroadly, expected outcomes relate to a better understanding of specific practices in formal and informal learning spaces that enable and constrain the sustainable impact of a professional learning program rooted in a philosophy of critical praxis and how that critical praxis is developed over time. Findings relate explicitly to the research questions and the ways that critical praxis was developed through the period of the professional development program. Also, the practice architectures that enabled and constrained that development. Specifically, this includes issues associated with agency, power, and trust. Other factors related to the development of critical praxis are also discussed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Francisco, Susanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Professional learning that enables the development of critical praxis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Professional Development in Education. - : Taylor & Francis. - 1941-5257 .- 1941-5265. ; 49:5, s. 938-952
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Professional learning is increasingly understood as vital for the development of educators, and for the development of a strong educational system. We argue that the most essential purpose of professional learning is for the development of critical praxis. Critical praxis is related to action that is morally, socially and politically informed. This action is undertaken with an awareness of possible consequences together with the intention to make positive contributions to society and to humankind. Critical praxis in education is an intentional action (or associated reflexivity) informed by critical questioning related to the social, moral and political purpose of education. Critical praxis is tightly connected with learning experiences. This article looks at three examples of the development of critical praxis through professional learning, across three different educational settings. We explore the practice architectures that enable and constrain critical praxis in professional practice and identify three key themes in relation to the development of critical praxis: agency, power and relational trust. We argue that the potential power of professional learning is in supporting and developing the capacity to question institutionalised habits or educational practices that may be in conflict with values, purpose and moral intentions, in order to create positive change.
|
|
| 5. |
- Fransisco, Susanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Professional Learning for Critical Praxis in Education.
- 2019
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper focuses on professional learning that enables and supports critical praxis in education. It draws on three different research projects: a Swedish project that explores a critical action research project where principals and a scholar participated as equal partners, investigating leading; an Australian project that investigated how action research as a form professional learning can support pedagogical middle leading during curriculum reform; and an international project undertaken by academics from Norway, Finland, Sweden and Australia that explores critical praxis in higher education. The research question being addressed in this paper is “what enables and constrains professional learning for critical praxis in education?”There are a range of understandings of the concept of praxis (ref). Kemmis and Smith (2008) identify praxis as “what people do when they take into account all the circumstances and exigencies that confront them at a particular moment and then, taking the broadest view they can of what it is best to do, they act (p.4).” Mahon et al (2018) define critical educational praxis as “a kind of social-justice oriented, educational practice/praxis, with a focus on asking critical questions and creating conditions for positive change (p. 2). In this paper we use this as our working definition of critical educational praxis. We argue that critical educational praxis is an important component in supporting the development of “opportunities for sustainable, peaceful and equitable co-existence that appreciates diversity and diversification under conditions of uncertainty and risk now and in the future
|
|
| 6. |
- Grice, Christine, et al.
(författare)
-
Decentering pedagogical leadership : Educational leading as pedagogical practice
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Decentering leadership. - Oxon : Routledge. - 9781032599441 - 9781003456919 ; , s. 89-107
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Pedagogical leadership is increasingly emphasised in education policies and leadership standards. Yet conceptualisations of pedagogy and pedagogical leadership vary, from a focus on compliance that operationalises the role of formal school leaders, through to notions of pedagogical leadership as a praxis-oriented practice. This paper focuses on pedagogical leading practices in school settings in Sweden and Australia. Utilising the theory of practice architectures, it explores how historical notions of pedagogical leadership have changed over time in the two countries.Findings show that there are different depths of pedagogical understanding and differences between understandings of individual and collective pedagogy in policy, school leadership and practice in Australia. The traditional way of understanding pedagogical leadership in Sweden is being challenged with ideas that focus on efficiency and student outcomes and where the school’s principal is foremost seen as the school’s pedagogical leader. There is a decentering of pedagogy in both countries in which pedagogy is viewed as a model of individual attainment over the collective moral responsibility of education.Both cases raise questions about the state of educational leadership and pedagogical leadership globally and the decentering of pedagogy from students, the ultimate purpose of pedagogical practice. Educators need to reclaim the original meaning of pedagogy in order to reclaim the core purpose of education for shaping human society. How pedagogy and pedagogical leadership is understood in context will determine the extent to which they are seen as praxis-oriented practices. Properly understanding pedagogy is one way of decentring the popular role title ‘pedagogical leader’.
|
|
| 7. |
- Grice, Christine, et al.
(författare)
-
Decentring pedagogical leadership : educational leading as a pedagogical practice
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Educational Administration & History. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0022-0620 .- 1478-7431. ; 55:1, s. 89-107
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Pedagogical leadership is increasingly emphasised in education policies and leadership standards. Yet conceptualisations of pedagogy and pedagogical leadership vary from a focus on compliance that operationalises the role of formal school leaders, through to notions of pedagogical leadership as a praxis-oriented practice. This paper focuses on pedagogical leading practices in school settings in Sweden and Australia. Utilising the theory of practice architectures, it explores how historical notions of pedagogical leadership have changed over time in the two countries. Findings show that there are different depths of pedagogical understanding and differences between understandings of individual and collective pedagogy in policy, school leadership and practice. Both cases raise questions about the state of educational leadership and pedagogical leadership globally and the decentring of pedagogy from students, the ultimate purpose of pedagogical practice. Properly understanding pedagogy is one way of decentring the popular role title ‘pedagogical leader’.
|
|
| 8. |
- Kemmis, Stephen, et al.
(författare)
-
Pedagogy, Education and Praxis: An Eleven-year Progress Report from an International Research Network – Part 2
- 2019
-
Ingår i: ECER-conference, September 3-6 2019, Hamburg.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This is the second part of a two-part symposium reporting on the work of the Pedagogy, Education and Praxis (PEP) network, a cross-institutional, collaborative research program which brings together researchers from Finland, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia, Columbia, the Caribbean, and the UK. These researchers are investigating the nature, traditions and conditions of pedagogy, education and praxis and how they are understood, developed and sustained in different national contexts and various educational settings. The PEP international network emerged in 2005 out of a series of discussions about the ways in which the bureaucratization and de-professionalization of education were eroding the moral, social and political commitments that informed pedagogical practice until the recent past, and a shared conviction of the need for a form of educational research committed to reviving and restoring these commitments. This second part of the symposium will present findings from a systematic review of well over two hundred PEP publications 2007-2018 (books, chapters, refereed journal articles, special issues, refereed conference proceedings and doctoral theses) generated from the PEP research program, Action Research and Practice Theory. This second part of the symposium reports on findings of the 3rd, 4th and 5th of the PEP research questions: What is educational praxis? How, in different national contexts, is good professional practice/praxis being understood, experienced and practised by teachers and teacher educators? How, in different national contexts, is good professional education (that is, educational praxis development) being understood, experienced and practised by teachers and teacher educators? How, in different national contexts, are the changing cultural, social, political and material conditions for praxis and praxis development affecting the educational practices of teachers and teacher educators? What research approaches facilitate praxis and praxis development in different international contexts? The symposium will include and introduction plus five papers presenting brief syntheses of findings from across the PEP research program about each of these questions. Because it addresses all five of the PEP network research questions, the symposium covers several themes of interest to Network 1 including: ways in which teachers and other professionals on the field of education learn and develop throughout their professional career; organisational, historical, situational, and policy contexts in which their professional learning occurs; knowledge that shapes their professional identity or contributes to their understanding and betterment; conditions and practices that improve and encourage professional development. References Rönnerman, K., Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2018). Att leda från mitten – Lärare som driver professionell utveckling. [Leading from the middle: Teachers driving professional development]. Stockholm: Lärarförlaget. Grootenboer, P. (2018). The practices of school middle leadership: Leading professional learning: Leading professional learning. Singapore: Springer. Almqvist, J., Hamza, K. & Olin, A. (2017). Undersöka och utveckla undervisning. Professionell utveckling för lärare [Explore and develop teaching. Professional development for teachers]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Mahon, K., Francisco, S. & Kemmis, S. (Eds.) (2017) Exploring Education and Professional Practices. Singapore: Springer. Grootenboer, P., Edwards-Groves, C. & Choy. S. (Eds) (2017). Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education: Praxis diversity and contestation. Singapore: Springer. Wilkinson, J., Bristol, L., & Ponte, P. (Eds.) (2016). Professional development: Education for all as praxis. Routledge. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. (2014) Changing Practices, Changing Education. Singapore: Springer. Kemmis, S. & Smith, T.J. (Eds.) (2008). Enabling Praxis: Challenges for education. Rotterdam: Sense. Ax, J. & Ponte, P. (Eds.). (2008). Critiquing praxis: The teaching profession in contemporary educational praxis. Rotterdam: Sense. Rönnerman, K., Furu, E.M. & Salo, P. (Eds.). (2008). Nurturing praxis: Action research in partnerships between school and university in a Nordic light. Rotterdam: Sense.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
