Recent consciously curated conditions of political polarisation have prevented English schools from taking even the first tentative steps towards decolonising the curriculum. Since returning to power in 2010, successive Conservative Secretaries of State for Education have resolved to restore traditional learning methods to English classrooms, championing the need for children to passively accept content chosen for them by government appointees who are answerable to political rather than to pedagogical priorities. This had already created an unsupportive political environment for transforming what children might learn, before such difficulties were magnified following the Brexit referendum of 2016. Decolonisation has increasingly been identified by Conservative Party strategists as one of their beloved wedge issues, something that can be used to stoke electorally expedient anger against ‘the Remainer elite’ among Leave-voting communities. Hopes for a serious debate about the principles of decolonisation were frustrated by the Johnson government hijacking the very mention of the word to use as evidence that the ‘woke’ brigade was running hopelessly out of control. The case for decolonising the English school curriculum has been subjected to a full-frontal populist culture-war attack on an educational establishment accused of refusing to allow children to see the good in their country.
{"title":"Decolonising the school curriculum in an era of political polarisation","authors":"Shahnaz Akhter, Matthew Watson","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.27","url":null,"abstract":"Recent consciously curated conditions of political polarisation have prevented English schools from taking even the first tentative steps towards decolonising the curriculum. Since returning to power in 2010, successive Conservative Secretaries of State for Education have resolved to restore traditional learning methods to English classrooms, championing the need for children to passively accept content chosen for them by government appointees who are answerable to political rather than to pedagogical priorities. This had already created an unsupportive political environment for transforming what children might learn, before such difficulties were magnified following the Brexit referendum of 2016. Decolonisation has increasingly been identified by Conservative Party strategists as one of their beloved wedge issues, something that can be used to stoke electorally expedient anger against ‘the Remainer elite’ among Leave-voting communities. Hopes for a serious debate about the principles of decolonisation were frustrated by the Johnson government hijacking the very mention of the word to use as evidence that the ‘woke’ brigade was running hopelessly out of control. The case for decolonising the English school curriculum has been subjected to a full-frontal populist culture-war attack on an educational establishment accused of refusing to allow children to see the good in their country.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47545988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines Muslim parents’ private school choice, their understanding of public–private schooling and how they navigate the choice between fee-free public schools and fee-charging private schools. This article draws on qualitative data from open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 38 parents from Muslim-majority areas in Delhi, India. The findings show that parents choose private schools for several reasons, such as their proximity, discipline, emphasis on Islamic teachings and values, safety and caring teachers. The analysis suggests that structural and social factors influence and construct parents’ choice of a particular school. The neighbourhood where they reside, their minority status, their socio-economic and demographic profile, and the type of schools that are available to them influence their decision making.
{"title":"Private school choice among Muslim parents: the public–private school decision in Delhi, India","authors":"Manjuma Akhtar Mousumi, T. Kusakabe","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.25","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines Muslim parents’ private school choice, their understanding of public–private schooling and how they navigate the choice between fee-free public schools and fee-charging private schools. This article draws on qualitative data from open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 38 parents from Muslim-majority areas in Delhi, India. The findings show that parents choose private schools for several reasons, such as their proximity, discipline, emphasis on Islamic teachings and values, safety and caring teachers. The analysis suggests that structural and social factors influence and construct parents’ choice of a particular school. The neighbourhood where they reside, their minority status, their socio-economic and demographic profile, and the type of schools that are available to them influence their decision making.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47205919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Exchanges between the great range of disciplines and experts within IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK), can be very productive. This article celebrates two professors who, in markedly different ways, have transformed interdisciplinary understanding of their chosen specialties. Some of their ideas are summarised here to encourage readers who could benefit from their publications and are not yet familiar with them to be keen to study and gain from them. Berry Mayall and Roy Bhaskar might seem too dissimilar to fit into one article. Berry worked here for nearly fifty years, Roy for only seven. One was a sociologist, working mainly on empirical research, the other a philosopher developing extremely advanced theories. Yet they both developed critical new ideas and were under-recognised within IOE despite their international influence. Roy is such a prestigious philosopher, many may wonder why a whole article is not dedicated to him. My aims include recording some benefits of the interdisciplinary thinking he promoted. This article briefly considers some of the ideas that each developed and why these are important; their collaborative work; memories from colleagues they have influenced; and their contribution to IOE’s history and, potentially, to its future.
{"title":"Berry Mayall and Roy Bhaskar: critical thinkers","authors":"P. Alderson","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.24","url":null,"abstract":"Exchanges between the great range of disciplines and experts within IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK), can be very productive. This article celebrates two professors who, in markedly different ways, have transformed interdisciplinary understanding of their chosen specialties. Some of their ideas are summarised here to encourage readers who could benefit from their publications and are not yet familiar with them to be keen to study and gain from them. Berry Mayall and Roy Bhaskar might seem too dissimilar to fit into one article. Berry worked here for nearly fifty years, Roy for only seven. One was a sociologist, working mainly on empirical research, the other a philosopher developing extremely advanced theories. Yet they both developed critical new ideas and were under-recognised within IOE despite their international influence. Roy is such a prestigious philosopher, many may wonder why a whole article is not dedicated to him. My aims include recording some benefits of the interdisciplinary thinking he promoted. This article briefly considers some of the ideas that each developed and why these are important; their collaborative work; memories from colleagues they have influenced; and their contribution to IOE’s history and, potentially, to its future.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43053824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article makes the case for repositioning values and ethics as central to understanding how curriculum knowledge can be educationally powerful. Disciplinary knowledge can help individuals make sense of the present, explore alternative futures and participate in society, making ethical choices about how to live. This, however, depends on particular relationships between curriculum, disciplinary knowledge, values and ethical perspectives. We argue that the recent research agenda exploring disciplinary knowledge underplays the values dimension in how curriculum knowledge is constructed and used. First, we give an overview of the recent thrust of curriculum debates in subject education communities, placing this in some historical context. Here, we recognise the need to make a robust case for school subjects and their important relationship with disciplines. We go on to examine some arguments around the role of knowledge in curriculum. Taking the concept of the Anthropocene (the human epoch of the planet) and from our perspectives as geography and religious education educators, we propose a focus on ethical disposition and interdisciplinarity to make the values dimensions of curriculum knowledge more visible.
{"title":"Disciplinary knowledge for what ends? The values dimension of curriculum research in the Anthropocene","authors":"David R. Mitchell, Alexis Stones","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.23","url":null,"abstract":"This article makes the case for repositioning values and ethics as central to understanding how curriculum knowledge can be educationally powerful. Disciplinary knowledge can help individuals make sense of the present, explore alternative futures and participate in society, making ethical choices about how to live. This, however, depends on particular relationships between curriculum, disciplinary knowledge, values and ethical perspectives. We argue that the recent research agenda exploring disciplinary knowledge underplays the values dimension in how curriculum knowledge is constructed and used. First, we give an overview of the recent thrust of curriculum debates in subject education communities, placing this in some historical context. Here, we recognise the need to make a robust case for school subjects and their important relationship with disciplines. We go on to examine some arguments around the role of knowledge in curriculum. Taking the concept of the Anthropocene (the human epoch of the planet) and from our perspectives as geography and religious education educators, we propose a focus on ethical disposition and interdisciplinarity to make the values dimensions of curriculum knowledge more visible.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44763234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article recalls the key concept of due regard in the Equality Act 2010 and outlines how it was increasingly ignored by the Department for Education (DfE) in England in the following decade. Further, it speculates that if the concept of due regard had been observed more rigorously across all government departments, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been less tragic and traumatising in its effects, and less responsible for deepening inequalities throughout British society. It concludes that the Act should be revisited, revised and re-emphasised.
{"title":"Education and equalities in Britain, 2010–2022: due regard and disregard in a time of pandemic","authors":"R. Richardson","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.22","url":null,"abstract":"This article recalls the key concept of due regard in the Equality Act 2010 and outlines how it was increasingly ignored by the Department for Education (DfE) in England in the following decade. Further, it speculates that if the concept of due regard had been observed more rigorously across all government departments, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been less tragic and traumatising in its effects, and less responsible for deepening inequalities throughout British society. It concludes that the Act should be revisited, revised and re-emphasised.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45399088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present research aimed to reveal how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the mathematical reasoning of primary school students through mediation analysis. It was designed as ex post facto research. The research sample consisted of two cohorts. Cohort 1 included 415 primary school children who received face-to-face instruction by attending school for six months until COVID-19 emerged. Cohort 2 included 964 children who were taught curricular skills through distance education due to COVID-19 and school closures. In total, 1,379 primary school children were recruited into the research sample. Data were collected through a mathematical reasoning test by sending items from the instrument via Google Docs. The data were analysed with mediation analysis. Results demonstrated that the school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced mathematical reasoning skills. Findings are discussed in the light of human interaction and Cattell’s intelligence theory.
{"title":"The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary school students’ mathematical reasoning skills: a mediation analysis","authors":"K. Coskun, C. Kara","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.19","url":null,"abstract":"The present research aimed to reveal how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the mathematical reasoning of primary school students through mediation analysis. It was designed as ex post facto research. The research sample consisted of two cohorts. Cohort 1 included 415 primary school children who received face-to-face instruction by attending school for six months until COVID-19 emerged. Cohort 2 included 964 children who were taught curricular skills through distance education due to COVID-19 and school closures. In total, 1,379 primary school children were recruited into the research sample. Data were collected through a mathematical reasoning test by sending items from the instrument via Google Docs. The data were analysed with mediation analysis. Results demonstrated that the school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced mathematical reasoning skills. Findings are discussed in the light of human interaction and Cattell’s intelligence theory.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48289887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, we review the process of building relationships around education and international development at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). The analysis looks at how hierarchies linked to colonialism were inscribed in initial structures, and unevenly and disparately contested by students, staff and a range of interlocutors around the world over one hundred years. The article considers how this history shapes practice in the present and perspectives on the future. In describing and reflecting on processes for change, the article considers some of the questioning, discussion and new forms of relationship that are emerging as part of trying to develop an orientation away from a colonial past. Efforts to decolonise education have raised questions and actions associated with reimagining practice. We reflect on what we have learned and unlearned from our efforts to promote decolonial, socially just alternatives.
{"title":"Education, decolonisation and international development at the Institute of Education (London): a historical analysis","authors":"E. Unterhalter, L. Kadiwal","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.18","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we review the process of building relationships around education and international development at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). The analysis looks at how hierarchies linked to colonialism were inscribed in initial structures, and unevenly and disparately contested by students, staff and a range of interlocutors around the world over one hundred years. The article considers how this history shapes practice in the present and perspectives on the future. In describing and reflecting on processes for change, the article considers some of the questioning, discussion and new forms of relationship that are emerging as part of trying to develop an orientation away from a colonial past. Efforts to decolonise education have raised questions and actions associated with reimagining practice. We reflect on what we have learned and unlearned from our efforts to promote decolonial, socially just alternatives.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49585744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I have had a close and long-standing relationship with the IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). In order to understand why and how for many years the IOE became my ‘second home’, I infuse this article with a combination of critical academic and political points and a detailed sense of personal history. In the process, I trace out the development of a number of my arguments about the relationship between knowledge, power and education. I connect this to the role of the IOE in this development, both as an institution and with regard to people with whom I had close contacts over the years. Among the people I particularly focus on is Geoff Whitty, who was a key figure in all of this.
{"title":"Knowledge and sociality: on the Institute of Education (London) as a second home","authors":"M. Apple","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.16","url":null,"abstract":"I have had a close and long-standing relationship with the IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). In order to understand why and how for many years the IOE became my ‘second home’, I infuse this article with a combination of critical academic and political points and a detailed sense of personal history. In the process, I trace out the development of a number of my arguments about the relationship between knowledge, power and education. I connect this to the role of the IOE in this development, both as an institution and with regard to people with whom I had close contacts over the years. Among the people I particularly focus on is Geoff Whitty, who was a key figure in all of this.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48228203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arriving in the UK after exile from Nazi Germany, Karl Mannheim taught sociology at the London School of Economics and then also at the London Institute of Education, where he was awarded a chair just a year before his untimely death in 1947. In his later writings and teaching, Mannheim argued that the sociology of education could make a crucial contribution to the new type of society he regarded as essential if the problems of liberal democracy were to be overcome, and the slide towards totalitarianism avoided. And the period immediately after his death was a key phase in the development and establishment of the sociology of education in Britain. Jean Floud, who took over teaching the subject at the Institute of Education after Mannheim’s death, played a central role in this, but, while she had studied with him and served as his research assistant, she adopted a very different approach. This focused, in particular, on whether the existing structure and operation of educational institutions restricted social mobility. As a result of this change in focus, Mannheim’s work had a very marginal role in the subsequent history of British sociology of education. In this article, I compare Mannheim’s and Floud’s competing conceptions of the character and role of the subdiscipline, and how these fared in later developments within the field.
卡尔·曼海姆(Karl Mannheim)从纳粹德国流亡到英国后，先后在伦敦经济学院(London School of Economics)和伦敦教育学院(London Institute of Education)教授社会学，并在1947年英年早逝的前一年被授予教授职位。在他后来的著作和教学中，曼海姆认为，如果要克服自由民主的问题，避免滑向极权主义，教育社会学可以对他认为必不可少的新型社会做出关键贡献。他去世后的一段时期是英国教育社会学发展和建立的关键时期。在曼海姆去世后，让·弗洛德(Jean Floud)在教育学院(Institute of Education)接管了这门学科的教学，她在这方面发挥了核心作用，但是，虽然她曾与曼海姆一起学习，并担任他的研究助理，但她采用了一种截然不同的方法。这尤其集中于教育机构的现有结构和运作是否限制了社会流动。由于这一关注点的变化，曼海姆的著作在随后的英国教育社会学历史中扮演了一个非常边缘的角色。在这篇文章中，我比较了Mannheim和Floud关于子学科的特征和作用的相互竞争的概念，以及这些概念在该领域后来的发展中是如何发展的。
{"title":"Karl Mannheim and Jean Floud: a false start for the sociology of education in Britain?","authors":"M. Hammersley","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.15","url":null,"abstract":"Arriving in the UK after exile from Nazi Germany, Karl Mannheim taught sociology at the London School of Economics and then also at the London Institute of Education, where he was awarded a chair just a year before his untimely death in 1947. In his later writings and teaching, Mannheim argued that the sociology of education could make a crucial contribution to the new type of society he regarded as essential if the problems of liberal democracy were to be overcome, and the slide towards totalitarianism avoided. And the period immediately after his death was a key phase in the development and establishment of the sociology of education in Britain. Jean Floud, who took over teaching the subject at the Institute of Education after Mannheim’s death, played a central role in this, but, while she had studied with him and served as his research assistant, she adopted a very different approach. This focused, in particular, on whether the existing structure and operation of educational institutions restricted social mobility. As a result of this change in focus, Mannheim’s work had a very marginal role in the subsequent history of British sociology of education. In this article, I compare Mannheim’s and Floud’s competing conceptions of the character and role of the subdiscipline, and how these fared in later developments within the field.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41431209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses three (among many) contributions made by Jagdish S. Gundara (1938–2016) to the IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). First, in his capacity as a professor and UNESCO Chair, and as the director of the International Centre for Intercultural Education since its inception in 1979, Gundara was instrumental in making the IOE a national and global space for discussions related to topics such as multiculturalism and diversity in education. Second, Gundara’s own research and scholarly work made the IOE an attractive place for colleagues and students interested in broadening the field of intercultural studies. Finally, the article considers Gundara’s third contribution to the IOE: those who knew him closely would agree that his friendly disposition has enhanced the culture of the institution as a vibrant community of local-global scholars. This article reflects on such aspects of Gundara’s work and legacy. In doing so it attempts to provide a glimpse into his personal and professional journeys, and the three phases of his intercultural experiences – his childhood in Nairobi, Kenya, as the son of immigrants from India; his studies at universities across North America and the UK; and, finally, his career as an educator at the IOE in London.
本文讨论了Jagdish S. Gundara(1938-2016)对伦敦大学学院教育与社会学院(英国伦敦大学学院)IOE(教育研究所)的三个(众多)贡献。首先，冈达拉以教授和教科文组织主席的身份，以及自1979年国际跨文化教育中心成立以来担任该中心主任的身份，推动国际文化中心成为讨论多元文化主义和教育多样性等主题的国家和全球空间。其次，Gundara本人的研究和学术工作使IOE成为有兴趣拓宽跨文化研究领域的同事和学生的一个有吸引力的地方。最后，本文考虑了Gundara对IOE的第三个贡献:那些熟悉他的人都会同意，他的友好性格增强了IOE的文化，使其成为一个充满活力的地方-全球学者社区。这篇文章反映了冈达拉的工作和遗产的这些方面。在此过程中，本书试图让读者一瞥他的个人和职业旅程，以及他跨文化经历的三个阶段——作为印度移民的儿子，他在肯尼亚内罗毕度过了童年;他在北美和英国的大学学习;最后，他的职业生涯是在伦敦的IOE担任教育家。
{"title":"Jagdish Gundara: broadening the field of intercultural studies at the Institute of Education (London)","authors":"Namrata Sharma","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.17","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses three (among many) contributions made by Jagdish S. Gundara (1938–2016) to the IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). First, in his capacity as a professor and UNESCO Chair, and as the director of the International Centre for Intercultural Education since its inception in 1979, Gundara was instrumental in making the IOE a national and global space for discussions related to topics such as multiculturalism and diversity in education. Second, Gundara’s own research and scholarly work made the IOE an attractive place for colleagues and students interested in broadening the field of intercultural studies. Finally, the article considers Gundara’s third contribution to the IOE: those who knew him closely would agree that his friendly disposition has enhanced the culture of the institution as a vibrant community of local-global scholars. This article reflects on such aspects of Gundara’s work and legacy. In doing so it attempts to provide a glimpse into his personal and professional journeys, and the three phases of his intercultural experiences – his childhood in Nairobi, Kenya, as the son of immigrants from India; his studies at universities across North America and the UK; and, finally, his career as an educator at the IOE in London.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46924487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：