Showing papers in "Review of Research in Education in 2010"

New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes

Abstract: is broad consensus among educators, communication scholars, sociologists, and economists that the development and diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICT) are having a profound effect on modern life. This is due to the affordances of new digital media, which bridge the interactive features of speech and the archival characteristics of writing; allow many-to-many communication among people without regard to time and space, including mass collaborative editing of texts; facilitate the creation of a global hyper-indexed multimodal information structure; and enable content production and distribution in both writing and multimedia on a scale previously unimaginable (Jewitt, 2008; Warschauer, 1999). For all these reasons, computer-mediated communication can be considered a new mode of information (Poster, 1990), or a "fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge" (Harnad, 1991, p. 39), following the three prior revolutions of language, writing, and print. The previous revolution, brought about through the development and diffusion of printing, took centuries to unfold, as its full impact depended on the industrial revolution that Gutenberg's printing press preceded by several centuries (Eisenstein, 1979). Today, though, the development and diffusion of computers and the Internet occur simultaneously with a new economic revolution, based on transition from an industrial to an informational economy (Castells, 1996). This helps explain both why new media have spread so fast and also why they are so crucial to enabling full social and economic participation. As Castells (1998) concludes, based on his exhaustive socioeconomic analysis of this postindustrial stage of capitalism, "information technology,

The Changing Social Spaces of Learning: Mapping New Mobilities.

Abstract: Writing on contemporary culture and social life, sociologists and cultural theorists have been describing new or changing forms of movement, variously described as cultural “flows” (e.g., Appadurai, 1996), “liquid life” (Bauman, 2005), or a “networked society” (Castells, 1996). The change in such movements or mobilities of people, media, material goods, and other social phenomena, including the reach or extension of such movements, connections between “global” and “local” life, the creation of new spaces and places, and new speeds and rhythms of everyday social practice, is arguably the most important contrast between contemporary social life and that of just a decade or two ago. Despite these changes and longer conversations about their meanings in a range of disciplines, mobilities and their relations to learning within education are still understudied and undertheorized. The present review maps current and relevant engagements with mobility and learning across conceptual and empirical studies. The first section considers the relationship of learning to space and place in educational research, and focuses in particular on the classroom-as-container as a dominant discourse of the field. By “dominant discourse” we intend that the classroom-as-container constructs not only particular ways of speaking and writing in educational research, but also systems of rules concerning how meaning is made (Foucault, 1972). This discourse functions as an “imagined geography” of education, constituting when and where researchers and teachers should expect learning to “take place”. This dominant discourse shapes educational research practice and perspectives, we posit, even when research questions cross “in school” and “out of school” borders. Next, in the second section, we consider disruptions and expansions of the classroom-as-container discourse within

The Uses of Evidence for Educational Policymaking: Global Contexts and International Trends:

Abstract: the past 150 years, educational systems have expanded and become integrally linked with economic, political, and social status in modern nation-states (see Kamens, Meyer, & Benavot, 1996). As the stakes for education have risen, so has the call for more and improved use of scientific evidence as a basis for educational policymaking (Luke, 2003; Slavin, 2002). The rise in the use of scientific evidence for educational policymaking rests on two common beliefs: One is the belief that school knowledge is abstract and universal, and the other is the belief that empirical evidence is an efficient indicator of knowledge and learning. As a result, there are serious educational policymaking consequences for individuals and schools tied to evidence (Olson, 2006). Evidence from averaged scores on international assessments of math and science achievement in particular have become important indicators of national political and economic strength, but there are many different kinds of evidence to consider (LeTendre, Baker, Akiba, & Wiseman, 2001; Wiseman & Baker, 2005). For example, high-stakes consequences resulting from averaged academic achievement scores exist for students and schools in the United States but even more so in other countries, such as Japan (LeTendre, 1999; E. Smith, 2005). However, how and why evidence is used for educational policymaking both in the United States and around the world are the larger questions this chapter addresses. To investigate the uses of evidence for educational policymaking, this volume and this chapter ask two fundamental orienting questions: Why use evidence in educational policymaking? And why is evidence-based educational policymaking a global phenomenon? The answer to the first orienting question serves as a foundation for introducing relevant macrotheoretical perspectives and exploring the motivations and agendas that drive educational policy and decision making. The answer to the

Defining Equity: Multiple Perspectives to Analyzing the Performance of Diverse Learners.

Abstract: Defining equity within the context of a diverse, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, and multicultural society, and one where social class strongly influences one's life chances is problematic. This chapter reexamines equity in an attempt to advance the discourse beyond the debate about strategies to close the achievement gap between White students and students of color. I situated the issue of equity within an analysis of broader social forces that cultivate inequality throughout society in employment, housing, criminal justice, and so forth so that educational inequality is part and parcel of overarching social ills. The notion of equity will be unpacked by asking a more basic and fundamental question about the ultimate purpose of education. If we assume the end game of education is producing student learning, then we should ask whether learning outcomes are distributed randomly across race, ethnicity, and social class. Moreover, I will explore whether No Child Left Behind (NCLB)-like assessments or high-stakes tests measure real learning necessary for social and economic success, or do they measure something else. The role of increased accountability via state-based systems as an approach to obtaining equity is hotly debated. Although advocates are many, several studies have found the consequences of high-stakes testing, which are nonobvious and perhaps unintended, have not helped advance the nation toward equitable schooling. The pursuit of educational equity has long been a goal of reform efforts in the United States. Yet creating a system of education where all children have equal access to quality instruction and widely available opportunities to learn to their fullest human potential has been elusive. More than half a century ago, the Brown v. Board of Education decision settled persistent concerns about the degree to which access to quality schooling was based on race (Ball, 2006; Ball & Samy, 2006; Gutierrez

Beyond Academic Outcomes

Abstract: it may seem, because it lies behind many of the contemporary debates that circulate around and within either side of the academic-nonacademic outcomes discussions. For example, when critics within multicultural education argue that a reliance on programs that focus mostly on celebrations of difference and the recognition and valuing of nondominant cultures leaves unaddressed issues of structural transformation and the redistribution of power, they are building from the fundamental recognition that the institution of schooling functions as both a universal and differential mechanism of recognition and (re)distribution. Herein rests the reason it is possible to find variants of race theory, or multicultural education, that self-identify as "critical race theory" or "critical multiculturalism." The critical impulse to understand and work with the differentiating functions of schooling, as part of the larger societal apparatuses of structural inequality, will apply in any debate about what outcomes schooling does, could, or should produce. Herein lies the reason skepticism remains about the ultimate efficacy of programs that focus on celebrations and recognition of difference or identity in the critical pursuit of structural transformation (Badiou, 2008). Ultimately, however, such debates are not going to be settled by theoretical fiat or analytical nuance. The questions about what outcomes schools might produce and what their effects may be in the larger distributions of primary goods beyond schooling can be advanced beyond irreconcilable theoretical debate only if they are understood as questions of lived experience, empirical effects, and social collective experience. In 1981, Harold Berlak and Ann Berlak pointed out a paradox facing progressive educators who are concerned with "educating the whole child." That is, as one of their dilemmas of schooling, Berlak and Berlak named a tension that lies between understanding the child as a person versus the child as a client. Applied to our current discussion, teachers focusing on the child as a client might be more inclined to This content downloaded from 157.55.39.130 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 04:55:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 138 Review of Research in Education, 34 focus on academic outcomes, whereas those concerned about the child as a person might lean toward focusing on nonacademic outcomes. However, as tempting as it is, as Berlak and Berlak pointed out, the more sides of a child's life we address as teachers, the more we open the whole child to our surveillance and control. Herein lies one of the paradoxes faced in debates about nonacademic outcomes. At the same time, though, it is very hard to know which outcomes to promote (or choose not to promote) without much more research into which nonacademic programs actually do "work" and which have lasting, powerful outcomes.

The Teacher Workforce and Problems of Educational Equity

Abstract: this chapter, we examine developments in the teacher workforce and in the occupation of teaching across recent generations. We take our point of departure from the perspective of prevailing policy discourse on enduring problems of educational equity, asking not only how teaching has evolved in recent decades but more specifically how that evolution has mattered to the distribution of educational opportunity and the shape of educational outcomes. This terrain is arguably large, and the text necessarily reflects certain choices regarding focus and emphasis. Consistent with the overall volume, we focus principally on conditions in industrialized nations and on teachers as the object of policies intended to remedy problems of persistent inequity. We acknowledge but do not delve into the extensive and complex body of classroom-based research that locates issues of equity in teachers' pedagogical practices, their relationships with students and families, and the expectations they hold of low-income, minority, or special-needs students (Delpit, 1996; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1999; C. D. Lee, 1995; Weinstein, 2002).1 In characterizing teacher workforce issues, our essay also reflects our deeper familiarity with the policy conditions and research activity in the United States than elsewhere. However, by reviewing international reports and studies, we have made an effort to locate American developments in a complex international landscape that demonstrates a visible institutional isomorphism in education and public policy (Meyer & Ramirez, 2000; Wiseman, 2010 [this volume]) while also preserving significant local variations (Anderson-Levitt, 2003) ? Our perspective is largely sociological, but

What counts as evidence of educational achievement? The role of constructs in the pursuit of equity in assessment

Abstract: what students learned as a result of the instructional practices of teachers were predictable, then all forms of assessment would be unnecessary; student achievement could be determined simply by inventorying their educational experiences. However, because what is learned by students is not related in any simple way to what they have been taught, assessment is a central perhaps even the central process in education. At the very least, assessment is integral to effective instruction. At first sight, it appears that assessment should be relatively uncontested. Everyone parents, teachers, employers, the wider community that supports public education through taxes, and the students themselves just wants to know what it is that students have learned. However, two difficulties emerge immediately. The first is that by its very nature assessment reduces ambiguity. The fifth-grade mathematics standard for many states requires students to be able to compare two fractions to find the larger, but when we assess, we have to decide which pairs of fractions should be included and which should not. This may be done explicitly, through a formal process of construct definition (see below), which lays out clearly what should be included and what should be excluded from the assessment, or more commonly, it may be done through some less formal process, involving a judgment of what is appropriate, given that this standard is intended for fifth-grade students as William Angoff (1974) remarked, "lurking behind the criterion-referenced evaluation, perhaps even responsible for it, is the norm-referenced evaluation" (p. 4). In fact, the choice of the fractions to be compared makes a huge difference to the rate of student success, even if we restrict the domain to fractions where both numerator and denominator are less than 10. In fifth grade, where the fractions have equal

Naming and Classifying: Theory, Evidence, and Equity in Education.

Abstract: Education names and classifies individuals (Meyer, 1977). This result seems unavoidable. For example, some students will graduate, and some will not. Those who graduate will be graduates; those who do not graduate will be labeled otherwise. The only way to avoid such labeling is to fail to make distinctions of any kind. Yet education is rife with distinctions, and as long as there is any nontrivial knowledge involved, labels for the more and less knowledgeable seem inherent to the enterprise. Thus, analysts and policymakers seem to have accepted the inevitability of at least some inequality in education. However, analysts and policymakers demonstrate some concern with the extent to which success or failure in education is associated with other sociodemographic factors. Multiple analysts have documented such a relation (e.g., Becker & Tomes, 1986; Blau & Duncan, 1967; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Sewell & Hauser, 1980), and multiple anthologies echo those findings of sustained inequality (e.g., Karabel & Halsey, 1977; Jencks & Phillips, 1998). As analysts document and explain such an association, they may facilitate policy responses to improve the education and educational outcomes for the disadvantaged. Yet many factors stand in the way of successful policy response. First, the nominal categories that constitute the sociodemographic dimensions are not simply given. Accordingly, prior to documenting sociodemographic inequality in education, analysts need attend to the theoretical bases of the categories in use. As the theoretical bases of the categories can be replete with contention and controversy, analysts may receive conflicting guidance as they proceed. Setting aside such debate, the very measurement of educational inequality itself is also not a given. Consequently, analysts must draw on the many debates within the literature as they seek to appropriately measure the phenomena of interest.

What Counts as Evidence and Equity

Abstract: Editorial introduction to Vol. 34 of Review of Research in Education (American Educational Research Association/Sage).

Evidence of the Impact of School Reform on Systems Governance and Educational Bureaucracies in the United States

Abstract: latter half of the 20th century saw an array of reform efforts designed to improve the educational system and achieve other, often ideological goals. These reforms operate within a system that is highly institutionalized, in both its structures and functions, which by design both limit and facilitate particular courses of action. At the same time, reforms often introduce contradictory goals, as is the case with those leading to greater centralization of the system versus those intended to weaken the bureaucracy and inject market principles into schooling. These tendencies give rise to the perception that things rarely change or that reforms have little impact on either school governance or the bureaucracy. Although there is some international convergence of these trends, this chapter examines recent trends in school reform and their impact on school governance and educational bureaucracies in the United States. It takes an institutional perspective, allowing us to examine how the educational system has evolved and understand the implications of particular reforms for educational governance.1 It argues that reform has expanded the federal and state role in education, transformed the organization of interests, and created a national political culture where educational policy priorities increasingly are established nationally. The result has been greater bureaucratization of the educational system and a more formalized and standardized system reflective of a national political culture. However, because these mostly top-down reforms fail to specify the mechanism by which they will transform education, their impact varies widely depending on local conditions and implementation, allowing local districts to retain considerable power within an increasingly bureaucratic system.

Education Rights and Classroom-Based Litigation: Shifting the Boundaries of Evidence

Abstract: researchers have identified elements of children's lives taking place before, within, and after school with disheartening potential to intensify these inequalities Within schools, harm is inflicted by unequal distributions of key resources, including teachers and buildings, as well as curricular and pedagogical approaches that are often ill suited for low-income students of color (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Delpit, 1996) Earlier in childhood, even before the onset of formal education, these children suffer from unequal distributions of resources, such as health care, nutrition, safe environment, preschool, and within-home learning resources (Barton & Coley, 2009; Berliner, 2009; Rothstein, 2004) All along, social capital particularly family efficacy in the manipulation of the educational system to gain access to better resources is unequally distributed for children (Fine, 1993; Lareau, 1989; Wells & Serna, 1996) Even this short list illustrates that many key sources of inequality are not directly attributable to schools Yet school policies can either amplify or minimize the inequalities that arise outside of school Consider the epigraph from Anatole France and imagine a hypothetical policy that allocates a school's best teachers to only those students who are able to document the highest number of volumes in their parents' home libraries Such a policy would tend to discriminate against students from lesswealthy families even if such a policy could be described as facially neutral and nondiscriminatory