01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Is a Diversification in Sources of Expertise Accompanied by Lack of Diversity in the Research that Gains Influence?
Cathy Burnett1, Parinita Shetty1, David Shannon1, Gill Adams1, Terrie Lynn Thompson2, Julia Gillen3
1Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom; 2University of Stirling; 3Lancaster University
Presenting Author: Burnett, Cathy;
Shetty, Parinita
This paper adds to a growing body of European work on research mobilisation which explores how research moves around educational systems with a view to understanding how research influences educational practice at local, national, regional and levels and to enhancing relationships between research and educational practice (e.g. see EIPSI, n.d.; Maxwell et al., 2022). Recent years have seen a shift away from universities as the primary source of research-based knowledge and expertise in education. New organisations dedicated to the accrual and dissemination of research evidence have emerged across Europe. Moreover social media enables a vast array of individuals and associations to address teachers and schools directly within and across national boundaries. Against this background, one area that has received little attention is the relative mobility of different kinds of research. The field of literacy education illustrates why this is an important focus. Literacy research is a dynamic and expansive field with potential to speak to literacy education in diverse ways. However, in recent years, certain strands of literacy research, for example associated with ‘The Science of Reading’ (Goodwin and Jiménez, 2020). have gained considerable international influence while research exploring a broad range of literacy topics using diverse methodologies has been marginalised. This paper contributes to debates about evidence-based education across Europe by examining how and why – given the diversity of educational research produced – some kinds of research gain considerable influence while others do not.
We draw on findings from a 2-year ESRC funded project which is exploring how and why some kinds of literacy research gain greater traction than others in educational contexts regardless of research quality or the efforts of researchers. While the focus for data collection is literacy education in England, the project has identified themes relevant to research mobilisation more generally and across Europe. In this paper we focus on one of these themes: the accrual and conferral of credibility.
There are various well-established markers and processes through which credibility is conferred in academia, such as promotion, journal editorships and invitations to give keynotes or join advisory groups. Our interest however is in processes through which individuals, groups and institutions come to be recognised as credible experts beyond academia – in schools and by teachers – given a complex educational landscape and the rapid expansion of communicative possibilities. This paper considers:
How is credibility accrued and conferred?
What is the relationship between credibility and research mobilisation?
(How) are processes of research mobilisation relevant to the diversity of research evidence gaining traction in schools and for teachers?
Our theoretical framework is rooted in the interdisciplinary field of knowledge mobilities which has explored how some types of knowledge travel more easily than others (Heike et al., 2017) and how ideas morph as they move across time and space (Barnes & Abrahamsson, 2017). It reflects a sociomaterial sensitivity to understanding the complex actors and the relations between them that propel (or block) movements of research evidence. This focus draws in more-than-human theorising to foreground the contribution of assemblages of human and nonhuman actors, allowing us to account for the work of algorithms, digital platforms and so on in mobilising research – and hence, in tracing appearances of expertise. Specifically, we draw on Law’s (2004) take on the Deleuzo-Guattarian notion of assemblage (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987), which highlights how ‘social, semiotic and material flows’ combine to produce relational effects in ‘an uncertain and unfolding process’ (Law, 2004, p.41). As we will explore in this paper, this stance provides ways of understanding credibility– whether conferred or enacted – as fluid and as produced through diverse and sometimes unpredictable relational effects.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis project has used an innovative multi-stranded, interdisciplinary methodology to enable the examination of mobilisations of research from different vantage points generating insights that are rich, dynamic and textured, if necessarily incomplete. In this paper we draw on two datasets:
1.A qualitative dataset drawn from interviews, focus groups and lifelogging with 32 primary teachers in England. Teachers were asked to log their encounters with research, discuss their experience of these encounters, and identify any opportunities and barriers to engaging with research. These could be encounters with research that derived from primary sources such as journals and books, were mediated by individuals or organisations or were embedded in policies and practices. Thematic analysis of teachers’ accounts highlighted not just the nature of these encounters and the diverse range of multimodal print and digital sources on which they drew, but also their reasons for believing some sources to be more credible than others and their motivations for seeking out certain sources of expertise, including and beyond traditional academic ones. This dataset also allowed us to identify the range of research topics that this sample of teachers encountered and the nature of the sources on which they drew (including research institutions and organisations but also independent consultants, charities, colleagues and so on).
2.Ten case studies that drew on adaptations of controversy mapping (Venturini and Munk 2022) and networked ethnography (Ball et al., 2016) to trace the movements of specific literacy research studies and research-informed literacy initiatives across social media, national policy directives, and local, national and international developments. These were selected from those identified by the teachers we worked with. Using sociomaterial heuristics developed by Adams and Thompson (2016) and adapting Ball et al.’s (2017) Networked Policy Ethnography, each case study traced materialisations of research across the educational landscape, including for example social media outputs, academic journals, media coverage, policy frameworks, websites, and blog posts. These tracings highlighted: key human and digital actors mobilising this research; associations between these actors and the assemblages created; the work that goes into this movement; and the sort of power and capacities the research output accrues.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe draw on exemplar material from across these two datasets to identify research which has gained influence with teachers and offer a series of insights into how credibility builds. Firstly we note patterns in the kinds of research, topics, people and organisations that were gaining influence with the teachers who participated in our study. We note that teachers made few references to universities as the originators of research and that: a) most references to research were to research produced or mediated by commercial or charitable organisations not universities; b) there is a reliance on independent consultants as research brokers; c) a narrow range of literacy research topics were explored. Secondly we explore some reasons for these emergent findings by sharing what we have learned about how credibility is established, both from teachers and from our tracings of specific studies. We suggest that relationships between expertise and perceived credibility may be tenuous, and that patterns in the circulation of research mean that a minority of research topics and studies can gain disproportionate influence. We argue that, if replicated more widely, these findings have considerable implications for relationships between research evidence and teaching as a diversification in sources of expertise may be undermining the diversity of educational research that gains influence in schools. In the light of this, we call for further research into what we call ‘research mobilities in education’ – i.e. the ways in which research moves to and between teachers, schools, policy makers and other actors. In doing so we argue for moving beyond analysis of planned dissemination activities to an examination of research movements ‘in the wild’ that take account of how research moves through complex and intersecting networks generated by communications, digital technologies, and a shifting educational landscape.
ReferencesAdams, C., Thompson, T. L. (2016). Researching a posthuman world: Interviews with digital objects. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ball, S.J., Junemann, C., Santori, D. (2017). Edu.net: Globalization and education policy mobility. London: Routledge.
Barnes, T., Abrahamsson, C.C. (2017). The imprecise wanderings of a precise idea: The travels of spatial analysis. In J. Heike, P. Meusberger, M. Heffernan (Eds.), Mobilities of Knowledge. Singapore: Springer.
Coldwell, M., Greaney, T., Higgins, S., Brown, C., Maxwell, B., Stiell, B., Stoll, L., Willis, B., Burns, H. (2017). Evidence-informed teaching: An evaluation of progress in England. Research Report.
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. (Trans., Massumi, B.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Evidence Informed Practice for School Inclusion (EIPSI). (n.d.) EIPSI – Evidence Informed Practice for School Inclusion (eipsi-project.eu) Last accessed 29th January 2022.
Goodwin, A.P., Jiménez, R.T. (2020). The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions. Reading Research Quarterly. 55(S1), S7– S16.
Heike, J., Meusberger, P, Heffernan, M. (Eds.) (2017). Mobilities of knowledge. Singapore: Springer.
Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Maxwell, B., Sharples, J., & Coldwell, M. (2022). Developing a systems-based approach to research use in education. Review of Education, 10, e3368. https://doi-org.hallam.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/rev3.3368
Venturini , T. Munk, A.(2021). Controversy Mapping: A Field Guide. Oxford: Wiley.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Experience is Everything? - Differences in Changing Attitudes Towards Knowledge Between Teachers with Different Experience Spans
Hanna Holmeide1, Joakim Caspersen2
1OsloMet, Norway; 2Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Presenting Author: Holmeide, Hanna
Teachers are expected to draw on different forms of knowledge; including both theoretical and practical knowledge. A teacher’s knowledge base is heterogenous (Grimen, 2008) and consists of knowledge in pedagogy, didactics, subjects they teach, practical knowledge about classroom management and social relations and knowledge in tacit and experience-based knowledge that needs to be accumulated over time (Hermansen and Mausethagen, 2023; Schulman, 1987). Additionally, over the past two decades educational policy reforms, both in Norway and internationally, have aimed at strengthening teachers’ theoretical knowledge base. The policies have stressed the importance of research-based knowledge in teachers and in teacher education (Ministry of Education and Research, 2014; Dahl et al, 2016).
Concurrently, teachers’ mandate has changed with societal changes and teachers are expected to be “mentors, master and mothers” (Hansen and Simonsen, 2001). Teachers’ mandate is generally tied to promoting the pupils’ personal, social and academic development. And teachers’ work is centred around 1) the teacher and the pupils, 2) teachers as part of a professional learning community and 3) teachers and parents and other partners (Thorsen and Christensen, 2018). The changes to teachers’ work and roles with changing educational policy is therefore interesting aspects when investigating teachers’ views on knowledge. We argue that these contextual factors are imperative to understanding teachers’ changing views on knowledge. What knowledge is of importance reflect the challenges teachers’ face in their professional lives, but also reflect school development and organisational structures.
“Schools are complex, multifaceted sites of learning” (Handscomb,2019), not only for the pupils but also for teachers and other staff. In such, schools become a premium space for learning communities to develop professional practice. It is therefore interesting to investigate whether changes in views on knowledge are different among teachers with different years of experience. Teachers’ professional identity is created and developed through their education and occupation, with their social and cultural backgrounds, as a personalisation of knowledge and skills that the occupation requires (Heggen, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to examine changes in attitudes towards social and subject specific knowledge between teachers with different experience spans; novice teachers with zero to three years of experience, experienced teachers with four to ten years of experience and very experienced teachers with more than ten years of experience.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe empirical data that forms the basis of this paper consists of two surveys; one conducted in 2008 and another one conducted in 2021/2022, almost 15 years apart. The surveys were online questionnaires and were sent to teachers working in primary- and lower secondary schools in Norway (N= 2150 in 2008 and N=615 in 2022). The data is cross-sectional; meaning data of each observation belong to a different individual at a given point in time. By using question batteries from the 2008 survey in the 2022 survey, it was possible to make comparisons of trends over time and discover changes in attitudes, with the caveat that some questions might be understood differently or weighed differently in 2022 than in 2008. We apply linear regression models to investigate changes in attitudes of social and disciplinary knowledge among teachers with different length of experience. Do these changes vary with experience? And are these changes explained by different factors? In other words, are these changes different from novice and experienced teachers and how can these differences and changes be explained?
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary findings suggest a relational change in what competencies teachers value as important to succeed in the teaching profession. The social-relational part of teachers’ role and competencies have become more important to teachers in 2022 than they were in 2008. Moreover, competencies such as having subject specific knowledge was more important in 2008. These changing views on knowledge do not only vary over time but vary for teachers with different spans of experience. Early regression models suggest that theoretical knowledge vary with experience in 2008 but is mostly explained by gender. However, in 2022 there are no statistically significant differences between theoretical knowledge and teachers’ experience. However, holding the grades/years teachers have the most teaching hours at constant makes the coefficient statistically significant. In both years, the more experience teachers have, the more positive they are towards theoretical knowledge. The 2022 results could imply that teachers’ mandate and changing role is a stronger factor today than it was in 2008. This will be interesting to investigate further.
For social-relational knowledge, preliminary findings suggest that views on this type of knowledge also vary with experience. The more experience teachers possess, the more they value social-relational knowledge. In 2008, views on social-relational knowledge vary with experience for all experience categories and is mostly explained by gender, education and grades/years teachers have the most teaching hours at. In 2022, only very experienced teachers are statistically significantly different from novice teachers. The regression models are still in the early stages, and it will be interesting to investigate the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards theoretical and social knowledge and the length of their experience with different explanatory variables further. What is the relationship between changing views on knowledge and experience in the teaching profession? How can this be understood in a changing educational policy context?
ReferencesGrimen, H. (2008). Profesjon og kunnskap. In A. Molander & Lars Inge Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. (pp. 71-86). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Handscomb, G. (2019). Professional learning and research. In Godfrey, D. & C. Brown (Eds.), An ecosystem for research-engaged schools. Reforming Education Through Research (pp. 138-153). Routledge.
Hansen, A., & Simonsen, B. (2001). Mentor, master, and mother: The professional development of teachers in Norway. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 171-182. doi:10.1080/02619760120095561
Heggen, K. (2008). Tilbakeblikk på tre profesjonsutdanningar. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 92(6), pp. 457-470.
Hermansen, H & Mausethagen, S. (2023). Kunnskapsintegrasjon i lærerutdanning og profesjonsutøvelse [Knowledge integration in teacher education and professional practice]. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. In Mausehagen, S, S. Bøyum, J. Caspersen, T.S. Prøitz & F.W. Thue (Eds.) En forskningsbasert skole? Forskningens plass i lærerutdanning og skole [A research-based school? Research’s place in teacher education and in schools.
Ministry of Education and Research [Kunnskapsdepartementet]. (2014). Lærerløftet, På lag for kunnskapsskolen. Strategi. Retrieved from: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/vedlegg/planer/kd_strategi skole_web.pdfDahl
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Thorsen, K. E & Christensen, H. (2018). Grunnlaget for lærerarbeidet [The foundation for teachers’ work]. In Thorsen, K. E & H. Christensen (Eds.) Jeg er lærer! Reflektert, analytisk, kompetent [I am a teacher! Reflective, analytical, competent]. Fagbokforlaget.
|
