Summing Up Our Differences: A Reply to Siegel

This is a brief rejoinder to Harvey Siegel’s ‘Dangerous Dualisms or Murky Monism? A Reply to Jim Garrison’ (35·4), which was itself a critical response to my own recent paper in this journal (33·2). This is an attempt to sum up the key points of the Deweyan pragmatism that I argue for, and hence those that Siegel opposes. It is not an attempt to settle the debate, but rather to clarify our differences.     

Political economy of investment in education in South Asia: A reply

This is a reply to the commentary made by James Urwick on my paper ‘The political economy of investment in education in South Asia’ (International Journal of Educational Development 4, 155–166). The original paper discussed the rationality of allocation of resources to and within education in South Asian countries. In this paper I attempt to reply to some of the important issues raised by Urwick regarding my analysis, including choice of indicators and method of analysis. While some of the points raised by Urwick are obvious and some constitute genuine criticism, a large part of the criticism is misleading.     

Quantons are Quaint but Basic and Real,and the Quantum Theory Explains Much but not Everything: Reply to my Commentators

The commentators on my target article (Bunge 2003) have pointed out some gapsand controversial points in it. However, we all agree that (a) although the quantum theory is basically correct, its orthodox or Copenhagen interpretation, particularly the claim that quantum events are mind-dependent, is false; and (b) quantons – the referents of the quantum theory – however strange, exist on their own, even if some of their properties depend partially upon their environment. I only differ from some of my commentators on whether the quantum theory has no precursors at all; on whether it can explain everything physical, including the universe as a whole; and on whether the quantum theory of measurement is relevant. In this collective reply I will (a) emphasize the peculiarities of quantons by contrast to classons, while at the same time rejecting the hypothesis of absolute novelty; (b) show why the standard quantum theory of measurement fails to explain how measuring devices work; and (c) state that quantum cosmology, which claims to know the state-vector of the universe, is so far just a fantasy.     

Initiating a Dialogue

The diversity of interpretations and themes raised by the commentators testifies to the richness of the issues addressed in this article, and to the need for continued research and debate on this topic. In my reply, I respond to some of the specific criticisms of the commentators by focus most of my efforts on highlighting and exploring what I consider to be the major themes running through the commentaries.     

What does an index of school segregation measure? A commentary on Allen and Vignoles

This brief response paper seeks to clarify and expand the work of Allen and Vignoles presented in this issue. What Allen and Vignoles have done is useful because it directly replicates my earlier analyses of trends in social segregation between schools since 1989. These findings have had considerable international impact. So, to have them independently confirmed is therefore also important. The same substantive trends appear whatever sensible index of segregation is used—the clustering of pupils living in poverty in the same schools declined in the early 1990s, stabilised in the mid‐1990s, and has been increasing since then. However, Allen and Vignoles appear to ignore some of the earlier findings of mine that they have replicated, and make some intriguing errors when discussing how to measure segregation, especially in relation to the properties of the Gorard segregation index (GS).     

A rejoinder to Jrène Rahm’s “Stories of learning,identity, navigations and boundary crossings in STEM in non-dominant communities: new imaginaries for research and action”

This article presents my rejoinder to Jrène Rahm’s response to my article “STEM learning research through a funds of knowledge lens.” I focus on four themes that emerged from my reading of her commentary: the importance of the histories of youth of immigrant origin; her comments on globality; the theoretical lens that she brings to my research; and the methodological issues she discusses. I highlight Rahm’s humanizing component and the need to understand the complexity of immigration. What are we doing in our global settings to build on the diversity of experiences and backgrounds among the youth as a resource towards STEM learning?     

I Agree—Well,Mostly!

In this essay, I reply to my five commentators in the October 2017 issue of the Roeper Review to my July 2017 article: “ACCEL: A New Model for Identifying the Gifted.” I respond to each in turn. I end with the question I believe most important for those of us interested in giftedness to confront at the present moment.     

High Stakes Testing and the Structure of the Mind: A Reply to Randall Curren

'High stakes testing' is to be understood as testing with serious consequences for students, their teachers and their educational institutions. It plays a central role in holding teachers and educational institutions to account. In a recent article Randall Curren seeks to refute a number of philosophical arguments developed in my The Limits of Educational Assessment against the legitimacy of high stakes testing. In this reply I contend that some of the arguments he identifies are not mine, and that others survive his critique.     

Instructional systems development in the schools

The authors of this commentary take exception to several points made in an article that appeared in the most recent issue of this journal (ETR&D, Vol. 38, No. 2). Following this explanation of their concerns is a reply by the authors of the original article.     

Who's Afraid of Assessment? remarks on Winch and Gingell's reply

This paper defends my argument that criterion-referenced assessment should not be used to render an education system accountable to the state. Winch and Gingell's reply to my original paper understands me as denying the 'plasticity' of abilities. Considerable space is devoted to further discussion of this issue.'Plasticity' is not denied, but problems about the 'identity' of capacities, abilities, processes and rules are explored in some depth. Winch and Gingell defend certain kinds of pedagogy such as rote learning and 'teaching to the test'. I remind them that I was not actually discussing pedagogy in the original paper.     

Fostering environmental action through outdoor education

In this article I review my own teaching effectiveness specifically relating to a postgraduate university course. Whilst the theoretical material of the course promotes action there is no formal requirement for students to actually undertake action, leaving me to wonder whether my teaching has had any effect beyond the limitations of the course. I conducted a small-scale enquiry involving a recent cohort to explore this. An organising framework of single-loop, double-loop and triple-loop learning is introduced to distinguish between shallow and deep learning based on the differing degrees of intensity in the way that students reported their learning experiences and actions. The data show that the reflexivity reported by students, who are wrestling with concepts of self and agency, is consistent with what has been termed ‘inquiry as stance’. I have learnt that agency lies not just in the actions of students but also in the way they approach, internalise and externalise their own teaching and learning.     

Rejoinder to Aaron Cooley's Review of Teaching Against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism: A Critical Pedagogy

Because of Professor Cooley's prosecutorial review, I want to make clear at the outset that my rejoinder is not a codefendant's answer to a plaintiff's replication. Instead, I first attempt to provide an “immanent” analysis of Cooley's indictment, in the sense of dealing with what dwells within his reasoning. A specific philosophical definition of “immanent” reads: taking place within the mind of the subject, but having no effect outside (this does not apply to me as an outsider). I intend to battle with Cooley up close—no “dancing”—my defense against his offense. In the second part, the focus will be on what I think is missing from Cooley's attempt to discredit McLaren and Farahmandpur's book. His decision or failure to deal with what Marx and the most effective Marxists have written, and how some of this provided analyses that could be and/or was acted upon, may be more serious than his beating up on the book's authors.     

Reflexivity for what? A response to Gewirtz and Cribb on the role of values in the sociology of education

This article is a reply to Gewirtz and Cribb's argument for ethical reflexivity, presented in a previous issue of this journal. These authors compared their views with mine, suggesting a way in which the differences between our positions could be overcome. I argue that, while there is certainly substantial agreement, there are also some fundamental differences between us, notably about the goal of research. Indeed, in my view, what they recommend involves a greatly increased danger of bias and a version of scientism. At issue here is, in large part, the kind of ethical reflexivity that is appropriate in sociological work.     

Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes,beliefs and change

“Sometimes the teacher will say, ‘Read to the bottom of the page,’ and I try but I fall behind. Then she asks questions and a whole bunch of kids can answer the questions but I can’t. I try to keep up with everything but it's really hard. Sarah; 6th grade social studies student”.

This paper presents the results of a review of the research into content area teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the teaching of reading within their subject area(s). As exemplified in the quote above, the ability to read and learn from text written to provide information can be difficult and frustrating for students who lack the skills. Content area teachers have been encouraged for decades to incorporate reading into their area of instruction, but have often chosen not to do this for a variety of reasons. In addition, teacher educators have attempted to work with content area teachers to help them consider how to incorporate reading instruction into their classroom.This paper takes a closer look at the reasons that motivate pre- and in-service content area teachers in grades 6–12 to either teach or not teach reading. It also examines the ways in which teacher educators have worked to help content area teachers learn how to teach reading and the degree to which these interventions have been successful. In doing so I argue that (a) our approaches to working with content area teachers on this topic have been limited and (b) simply creating positive attitudes towards teaching reading is not necessarily enough.This paper begins with a brief discussion of what it means to teach reading in the content areas. Next I present a general introduction to teacher beliefs and how they may influence the instructional decisions teachers make. Then I discuss the methodology for my review. This is followed by the results of my review with implications for how teacher educators might consider addressing this issue in the future.     

From the voice of a ‘socratic gadfly’: a call for more academic activism in the researching of disability in postsecondary education

Abstract

In this article, I use the lens of voices and silences to frame my review of research in the field of disability and postsecondary education. I argue that we need to view research in this field as a necessarily political act that seeks to turn voices of silence into voices of change. Researchers therefore need to rethink their role in order to understand how they can use and direct their political voices. In order to persuade researchers to heed my call for more academic activism, adopt the role of a ‘socratic gadfly’ to identify six political areas of research where I argue that voices and silences need more critical examination. In discussing these six areas, I hope to illuminate the implications for ‘genuinely investigative’ research in the future.     

Moral development: a reply to Richmond and Cummings

My paper on moral development has been criticized on three main counts: firstly, that I have confused romantic and progressive ideology; secondly, that I have failed to appreciate the teleological character of (cognitive) developmental theory; thirdly, that I have failed to show that normativity of developmental theory goes, as it were, ‘all the way down’. In this reply, I maintain that the first two charges are based on distortion and misrepresentation of my argument, and—in relation to the third charge—that my critics have simply failed to offer any discernible counter‐argument to my case that it is misguided to seek empirical theoretical grounding for developmental theories of the kind in question.     

Seeing emotions: a review of micro and subtle emotion expression training

In this review I explore and discuss the use of micro and subtle expression training in the social sciences. These trainings, offered commercially, are designed and endorsed by noted psychologist Paul Ekman, co-author of the Facial Action Coding System, a comprehensive system of measuring muscular movement in the face and its relationship to the expression of emotions. The trainings build upon that seminal work and present them in a way for either the layperson or researcher to easily add to their personal toolbox for a variety of purposes. Outlined are my experiences across the training products, how they could be used in social science research, a brief comparison to automated systems, and possible next steps.     

Interpreting Achievement Gaps: Some Comments on a Dispute

This is a response to an article by Stephen Gorard in a previous issue of the journal. It addresses the issue of how achievement gaps in educational performance between ethnic and other groups, and changes in these, can best be measured. The approach recommended by Gorard is compared with that of the authors he criticises. The conclusion reached is that both approaches are of value: that they provide different kinds of information. Which is the most useful on any occasion depends on the purpose guiding the inquiry, and on the assumptions that can be made about the social processes being modelled.