Whose Literacy? Discursive constructions of life and objectivity

Drawing from literature in the social studies of science, this paper historicizes two pivotal concepts in science literacy: the definition of life and the assumption of objectivity. In this paper we suggest that an understanding of the historical, discursive production of scientific knowledge affects the meaning of scientific literacy in at least three ways. First, a discursive study of scientific knowledge has the epistemological consequence of avoiding the selective perception that occurs when facts are abstracted from the historical conditions of their emergence. Second, a discursive approach to scientific knowledge can also be an example of science‐as‐exploration. Third, literacy and discourse studies contribute insights that alter assumptions about pedagogical appropriateness in science education. The paper concludes by suggesting that when science literacy includes the historical production of scientific knowledge, it can thereby extend the possibilities for what can be thought, studied and imagined in the name of science education.     

Whose Cap？

你能通过读懂下面这篇短文，写出这些帽子主人的名字吗，     

Whose Knowledge?* 1 Gender,Education, Science and History

What forms of knowledge are deemed worth possessing in any period and who is allowed access to them are crucial questions for the historian of education. Science, now a core subject of study, has long been seen as ‘masculine’, especially at its highest levels, although the historical reasons for this have been somewhat neglected in education. This paper compares and analyses the interrelationships of education, gender and science at both the end of the long eighteenth century and in the early twentieth century in order to explore issues of knowledge and gender and demonstrate the use of a historical perspective     

Whose are they？

这篇作文行文流畅、短小精悍、紧扣标题。小作者通过对姐姐的外貌，特别是姐姐对自己学习的帮助，表现出自已对姐姐的无比热爱之情。     

Whose Knowledge? Whose Opportunities? The Demise of the Critical Academy?

This paper explores the emotional and social dynamic of girl's friendship groups in the primary phase of schooling. Previous research by one of the authors suggests that some primary head teachers viewed the particular groupings of girls as providing mutually supportive contexts for group members. Through discussion, interviews and observations of girls and their teachers in years 2, 4 and 6 of three inner city primary schools we aim to provide an insight into the organization of the groups, the rules which govern group membership, and the role groups play in defining the quality and nature of the girls relationships and their social networks at school. We further explore the impact that such social networks have for learning and the role the girls' teachers play in this process.     

Whose Horse Is It?

Once there was an old farmer who had a white horse.He often rode on his horse to a town.But one day,the horse was lost.He looked for it everywhere,but couldn't find it.     

Whose Dog Is Smarter?

Two dog owners are arguing about their dogs.First owner:My dog is so smart,every morning he waits for the pa-per boy to come around and then he takes the newspa-per and brings it to me.Second owner:I know ...First owner:How?     

Whose Child Is This?

“Whose child is this?”I asked ore daySeeing a little one out at play“Mine,”said the parent with a tender smile“Mine,to keep a little whileTo bathe his hands and comb his hairTo tell him what he is to wearTo prepare him that he may always be goodAnd each day do the things he should”     

Whose nature of science?

Science education literature explicitly and implicitly advocates basic tenets (criteria) for “the nature of science.” The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the science education tenets are also held by philosophers of science (those who study purported tenets of science), and furthermore, to reveal possible related philosophical positions underpinning differences in responses among the philosophers. The philosophers of science expressed significant disagreements with the tenets, and different philosophers of science varied on their views about the tenets. In addition, relationships were found among the philosophers' views of the nature of science, their views of philosophy of space, and with their philosophy of science in general. Therefore, the tenets that are advocated as basic criteria for science education's “the nature of science” must be reconsidered so that more accurate criteria may be developed for future nature of science research. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 34 : 39–55, 1997.     

Whose与Who＇s辨析

(1)Whose is this book?这本书是谁的?     

Whose quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national higher education policy

The article analyzes the construction of national reactions to a transnational higher education policy from the point of view of the representation of social actors in policy documents. The data are provided by the so-called Bologna Process, particularly the development of comparable quality assurance systems, and Finnish responses to those demands. Who is represented as active and who as passive, as European policies are discursively translated into national policies? How are those ‘quality actors’ represented in the policy documents directed at a transnational audience (i.e. the Bologna Process communiqués, as well as national reports on its advancement) as opposed to documents directed at a national, in this case Finnish, audience (i.e. national policy formation documents)? What kinds of policy fields emerge as a result of different representations of actors? This article takes the Bologna Process as an example of the ‘glocalisation’ of higher education policy.     

Whose interests and under whose control?: Interest convergence in science-focused school–community collaborations

In this dialogue with Monica Ridgeway and Randy Yerrick’s Whose banner are we waving?: exploring STEM partnerships for marginalized urban youth, I engage the critical race theory (CRT) tenet of interest convergence. I first expand Derrick Bell’s (1980) initial statement of interest convergence with subsequent scholarly work in this area. I then explore ways CRT in general and interest convergence specifically have been applied in the field of education. Using this framing, I examine how interest convergence may be shed new insights into Monica Ridgeway and Randy Yerrick’s study. For example, the tenet of interest convergence is used to frame why it was beneficial for the White artist, Jacob, and the Achievement Scholars to collaborate in the service-learning mural. Then the idea of interest divergence is brought into explore the ways in which Jacob benefitted from his participation in the service learning project while the Achievement Scholars were left with an unfinished project which they had to problem solve. To conclude, I provide future directions for the application of interest convergence and divergence to issues facing science education.     

“Whose gloves?”第一课时

一、说教材本课是义务教育牛津小学英语4A U nit6“W hose gloves?”第一课时的教学内容。该课的核心教学内容是“寻找物主”,要求学生围绕服饰类的英语单词,在一定情境下,能正确使用“W hose…is this/are they?”进行交谈。此外,对一些以复数形式出现的服饰类单词,如“socks,     

“Whose gloves？”第一课时

一、说教材；本课是义务教育牛津小学英语4A Unit 6“Whose gloves？”第一课时的教学内容。该课的核心教学内容是“寻找物主”，要求学生围绕服饰类的英语单词，在一定情境下，能正确使用“Whose…is this／are they？”进行交谈。此外，对一些以复数形式出现的服饰类单词，如“socks，trousers，shorts，gloves，ieans”等，除了要告诉学生这些单词一般与a pair of连用外，还要强调如果是与two pairs of等连用，be动词要用are。     

Whose are the Es in EBDs?

Two related incidents prompted me write this paper. First, I was looking through my files of quotes and came across one from a brief conversation some seven years ago with a 14 year old boy – I will call him John. John was responding to a question about an incident in class in his last year at primary school. He said he believed it was “the thing” that resulted in his exclusion from mainstream school. The second incident, or series of incidents, happened over a period of about three weeks in October 1995 when I had a number of telephone calls – including several from teachers – about EBDs. I recognised a common thread running through these that reflected numerous other conversations over the past few years. They also reminded me that, just as Peter Kingston drew attention in an article in the Guardian to the rising tide of emotion in the debate on ADD and ADHD (Kingston, 1995), emotion is evident in very many discussions of EBDs generally. Two quotes sum up this point. The first, the one I just referred to, from John:     

Which space? Whose space? An experience in involving students and teachers in space design

To date, learning spaces in higher education have been designed with little engagement on the part of their most important users: students and teachers. In this paper, we present the results of research carried out in a UK university. The research aimed to understand how students and teachers conceptualise learning spaces when they are given the opportunity to do so in a workshop environment. Over a number of workshops, participants were encouraged to critique a space prototype and to re-design it according to their own views and vision of learning spaces to optimise pedagogical encounters. The findings suggest that the active involvement of students and teachers in space design endows participants with the power of reflection on the pedagogical process, which can be harnessed for the actual creation and innovation of learning spaces.     

Whose quality? The (mis)uses of quality reform in early childhood and education policy

This paper reports on the findings of an in-depth genealogical study of the discourse of quality in Australian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) policy. Quality reform has become the foremost global policy agenda for ECEC due to assumptions about the economic potentials of quality services. In Australia, the recent National Quality Framework elevated early childhood policy in Australia from the margins as the lynchpin of a broader economic reform agenda. However, quality ECEC – what it is and does – is a complex, contestable notion that could be considered problematic for the sector to execute, particularly through market models of provision. Drawing on Foucauldian notions of discourse as the ‘already said’, the truth assumptions that have underpinned policy uses of quality ECEC in Australia are identified and critiqued. It is shown that the discourse of quality has been tactically deployed in Australian ECEC policy to realign quality ECEC outcomes with educative outcomes, as a means for government to selectively grow and govern human capital. This positions quality as a high-stakes reform discourse for early childhood stakeholders, entwined with the expanded reach and intensification of selective, performance-related standards and incentives.