在 "高分 "和 "低分问责 "背景下的循证实践与教学实践权力斗争

Cecilie Haugen
{"title":"在 \"高分 \"和 \"低分问责 \"背景下的循证实践与教学实践权力斗争","authors":"Cecilie Haugen","doi":"10.7577/pp.5303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Norwegian Knowledge Promotion Reform has followed international trends by combining centralised control over results with increasing autonomy in the curriculum and choice of methods. Local and professional autonomy is challenged through the combination of result-based and evidence-based accountability. However, whether the stakes related to results are “high” or “low” could impact the role of “evidence-based practices” in schools. This paper investigates how evidence-based practices have formed part of the power struggles in the forming of pedagogic practice in a high- versus low-stakes accountability context in Norway. In the two municipalities, evidence-based practices have been used to legitimise and exercise authority, increase external control and create hierarchies between different stakeholders. The influence of teachers and parents has been limited, as has been the possibility to adapt the teaching to students’ diverse needs. However, local gatekeepers have been important for relieving external pressure, and for ensuring local and professional autonomy.","PeriodicalId":53464,"journal":{"name":"Professions and Professionalism","volume":"54 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-Based Practice and Power Struggles Over Pedagogic Practices in “High-” and “Low-Stakes Accountability” Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Cecilie Haugen\",\"doi\":\"10.7577/pp.5303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Norwegian Knowledge Promotion Reform has followed international trends by combining centralised control over results with increasing autonomy in the curriculum and choice of methods. Local and professional autonomy is challenged through the combination of result-based and evidence-based accountability. However, whether the stakes related to results are “high” or “low” could impact the role of “evidence-based practices” in schools. This paper investigates how evidence-based practices have formed part of the power struggles in the forming of pedagogic practice in a high- versus low-stakes accountability context in Norway. In the two municipalities, evidence-based practices have been used to legitimise and exercise authority, increase external control and create hierarchies between different stakeholders. The influence of teachers and parents has been limited, as has been the possibility to adapt the teaching to students’ diverse needs. However, local gatekeepers have been important for relieving external pressure, and for ensuring local and professional autonomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"volume\":\"54 19\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.5303\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professions and Professionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.5303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

挪威知识促进改革遵循国际趋势,将对结果的集中控制与增加课程和方法选择的自主权相结合。基于结果的问责制和基于证据的问责制相结合,挑战了地方和专业的自主权。然而,与结果相关的利害关系是“高”还是“低”,可能会影响“循证实践”在学校中的作用。本文调查了基于证据的实践如何在挪威高风险与低风险的问责制背景下形成教学实践的权力斗争的一部分。在这两个城市,以证据为基础的做法已被用于使权力合法化和行使权力,增加外部控制,并在不同利益相关者之间建立等级制度。教师和家长的影响是有限的,使教学适应学生多样化需求的可能性也是有限的。然而,当地的看门人在缓解外部压力、确保地方和专业自治方面一直发挥着重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence-Based Practice and Power Struggles Over Pedagogic Practices in “High-” and “Low-Stakes Accountability” Contexts
The Norwegian Knowledge Promotion Reform has followed international trends by combining centralised control over results with increasing autonomy in the curriculum and choice of methods. Local and professional autonomy is challenged through the combination of result-based and evidence-based accountability. However, whether the stakes related to results are “high” or “low” could impact the role of “evidence-based practices” in schools. This paper investigates how evidence-based practices have formed part of the power struggles in the forming of pedagogic practice in a high- versus low-stakes accountability context in Norway. In the two municipalities, evidence-based practices have been used to legitimise and exercise authority, increase external control and create hierarchies between different stakeholders. The influence of teachers and parents has been limited, as has been the possibility to adapt the teaching to students’ diverse needs. However, local gatekeepers have been important for relieving external pressure, and for ensuring local and professional autonomy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Professions and Professionalism
Professions and Professionalism Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Professions and Professionalism (P&P) is an open-access, net-based, peer-reviewed and English-language journal. The Journal invites research-based empirical, theoretical or synoptic articles focusing on traditional professions as well as other knowledge-based occupational groups approached from any perspective or discipline. By prioritizing no single theoretical horizon or methodological approach, the journal creates a space for the development of the research field. Aims: To develop the study of professions and professionalism theoretically and empirically, To contribute to the development of the study of professions and professionalism as an international interdisciplinary field of research, To become an important publication channel for the international research community.
期刊最新文献
School Counsellors’ Professional Practice in Health Promotion, Prevention and Remedial Work in Swedish Schools Professional Regulation and Change in Times of Crisis: Differing Opportunities Within and Across Ecologies The Enactment of Professional Boundary Work: A Case Study of Crime Investigation Editorial: The Research Literacy of Teachers Educational Research Literacy: Philosophical Foundations and Empirical Applications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1