The Discourses of Social Justice in Education

What the existing organization of schooling presupposes...is that in consumption terms, the world consists of equally powerful individual actors. Such, of course, is not the case in a hierarchically ordered capitalist system, where labour and capital, and indeed different forms of both, have differential access to resources enabling them to consume. By largely intervening only in provisional relations, the state fails to recognize the central dynamic of education ‐‐ that provision and consumption are not coterminous. In essence, state intervention does not go far enough. (Lynch, 1989, p.127)     

Effects of Academic Discipline and Teaching Goals in Predicting Grading Beliefs Among Undergraduate Teaching Faculty

Prior research reveals that differential grading patterns exist among the academic disciplines. One explanation may lie in discipline-related differences in teaching goals and beliefs about the meaning grades should convey. This study examined the effects of academic discipline and teaching goals on grading beliefs. A national sample (n = 442) of undergraduate teaching faculty provided responded to a survey measuring the importance of various teaching goals and orientations toward norm-referenced or criterion-referenced grading (Frame of Reference), and beliefs about using grades to sort and select students on the basis of achievement (Gatekeeping). Both teaching goals and academic discipline were significantly related to gatekeeping beliefs, but not to beliefs about frames of reference for grading. Higher gatekeeping scores were associated with faculty in the paradigmatic fields and those who emphasized analytic skills and time management. Lower gatekeeping scores were associated with the preparadigmatic disciplines and teaching goals of synthesis and integration and developing respect for others. Faculty who identified their primary teaching role as subject matter oriented were more gatekeeping than those who identified themselves primarily as being student/personal development oriented.     

A Systematic Literature Review of Funding for Higher Education Institutions in Developed Countries

Resource allocation and funding in higher education is crucial to the success of reform and transformation of our higher education system. With a view to identifying trends and best practices in the area, utilizing a method of systematic literature review, we have critically reviewed relevant theories and practices from developed counties that are covered in the scholarly literature published in English in the past 10 years. Our review has revealed: (1) Several universal trends have exerted a decisive impact on resource allocation in higher education, for example, funding reduction and tuition fee increases, performancebased funding, privatization, corporatization, and internationalization; (2) Several theories underpin key research in the area, for example, new institutional economics, resource dependence theory, and political economy; (3) Several controversial issues have made their way into public debate, for example, higher education as a public good or private good, academic capitalism, educational equity, and the role of econometrics.     

What is meant by ‘support’ in higher education? Towards a model of academic and welfare support

This paper focuses on academic and welfare support for students in higher education, and specifically what makes that support effective. It draws on data from a research project which aimed to explore networks of support for disabled and non‐disabled students. Part of the research focused on the nature and sources of support that were identified as important by students, as well as the kinds of support that were available within the higher education institution (HEI). What emerged as of particular interest was the question, ‘What do we mean by support?’ Drawing mainly on the voices and experiences of the students, perceptions of support were explored and the effects of support on the students’ experience of higher education were considered. Through a focus on more generic support structures as well as support which was specific to individual (disabled) students, the research aimed to understand ‘support’ and its importance from the student perspective.     

Relations among three aspects of first‐year college students' epistemologies of science

At the start of their first semester, 35 college freshmen were given an interview probing (a) their differentiation of scientists' ideas from evidence, and hypotheses from theories; (b) their understanding of the inherent uncertainty of scientific knowledge; and (c) their reasoning about scientific controversies. The most common responses were in terms of an epistemology in which scientists' ideas and evidence are differentiated, and theories are understood as tested hypotheses (Level 2 in our system based on Carey, Evans, Honda, Jay, & Unger, 1989), although students varied in how consistently they differentiated theories and evidence across all questions. Responses in which theories are understood as broader explanatory frameworks guiding hypothesis testing (Level 3) were virtually nonexistent, but some students gave responses that showed awareness of processes of interpreting and reinterpreting patterns of results (Level 2.5). Responses across the three parts of the interview were significantly related. Consistently differentiating scientists' ideas from evidence was strongly related to appreciating the inherent uncertainty of scientific knowledge and with having a deeper understanding of the reasons for scientific controversies and how to resolve them. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 43: 747–785, 2006     

Priorities for evaluation of nontraditional degree programs

The request to evaluate a nontraditional degree program sounds simple enough. But what does it mean “to evaluate the program?” This article identifies twelve major areas seeming to require evaluative attention according to the perspectives of a number of different groups of people. In addition to identifying these areas, the study suggested priorities for the areas in terms of their long-term, overall importance in a complete evaluation plan and their immediate or short-term importance in the early stages of program implementation.