Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: using critical discourse analysis

A number of writers have drawn attention to the increasing importance of language in social life in ‘new times’ and Fairclough has referred to ‘discourse driven’ social change. These conditions have led to an increase in the use of various forms of discourse analysis in policy analysis. This paper explores the possibilities of using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in critical policy research in education, drawing on a larger research project which is investigating the equity implications of Education Queensland’s reform agenda. It is argued that, in the context of new times, CDA is of particular value in documenting multiple and competing discourses in policy texts, in highlighting marginalized and hybrid discourses, and in documenting discursive shifts in policy implementation processes. The last part of the paper discusses how such research might be used by policy activists inside and outside education department bureaucracies to further social democratic goals.     

Classroom materials

Your Energy World Published by U.S. Department of Energy

Blue Wings Flying by Elizabeth DeHuff Pictures by Dorothea Sierra Addison‐Wesley Publishing Co. Readding, Mass. 01867

Early Childhood Filmstrips Series Part I: About Myself Myself and Other People — Alike and Different My Family and Other Families—Alike and Different Everyone Needs Many Things by Ruth Jaynes, Beatrice Woodbrldge & Nancy Curry Bowmar/Noble Publishers, Inc. 4563 Colorado Los Angeles, CA 90039

“Man and His Gods: An Inquiry Into The Nature of Religions” Published by The Center for Humanities, Inc. 2 Holland Ave. White Plains, NY 10603

Alcohol: Facts, Myths and Decisions Published by Science and Mankind, Inc. Communications Park, Box 200 White Plains, New York 10601     

La calidad en la educación abierta y a distancia en México

Abstract

Since 1947, distance education in Mexico has had an important role for nonconventional populations. Considering that distance education is a heterogeneous and dynamic field, it is important to reflect on the need to improve quality as measured by our own standards. With that perspective in mind, a national meeting was organized to start a self‐diagnosis in which quality and access were the main concerns. Five hundred and twenty specialists from fifty‐one institutions participated in a national interactive synchronous meeting held in four regions. As a result of the meeting, thirty‐five criteria and 230 parameters of quality were established. The main conclusion of the meeting refers to the need for the elaboration of our own indicators for open and distance education.     

Quality of grey literature in the open access era: Privilege and responsibility

Conclusions We are living a deep change in the information transfer process involving the different actors of the editorial scene (from authors to editors, web-editors, e-publishers and readers), who occasionally play different roles at the same time (e.g., authors sometimes bypass the editor thus assuming direct responsibilities in the diffusion of documents in the Internet). Furthermore, information producers, managers or seekers often show twofold personalities like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They would like to find all documents free on the Internet and be able to read original, reliable, and high quality information, but they are sometimes reluctant to spread their papers through online nonofficial channels as they care for the impact factor, prestige, and career advancement. It is a revolutionary period in which new and alternative forms of scholarly communication live together with more traditional ones and the future is difficult to define. Recent initiatives of open access—such as Pubmed Central, Public Library of Science, Budapest Open Access Initiative—are contributing to define new trends in the editorial market, challenging the traditional distribution channels, mainly managed by commercial editors, and placing the authors’ role and publication copyrights under severe discussion. In this landscape, GL now has new dignity and becomes closer and closer to innovative scientific publications supported by researchers in view of a generalised movement towards open access. The nuances of grey are becoming lighter and lighter. The questions are many, the answers few, but, in any case, the ethical responsibility of producing and issuing quality documents can never be disregarded.     

Un inventaire des notions impliquées dans un enseignement général de mathématique à l'école secondaire

Sans résumé     

U.S. and international electronic data interchange

A variety of standards organizations are moving toward a single set of standards to be used worldwide for electronic communication of business transactions in the publishing industry. Sandra K. Paul is president of SKP Associates, past chairperson of the National Information Standards Organization, past chairperson, secretary, and subcommittee chair of BISAC, and treasurer of SISAC. She is also chairman of the ANSI Information Systems Standards Board.     

“State plans”: Their development and potential for regional depository libraries participating in the GPO depository program

Many librarians affiliated with regional depositories are concerned about the ability of their libraries to receive, process, store, and service all the titles and series available on deposit from the Government Printing Office. Some of them have even questioned whether their library can maintain regional status and fulfill all the service elements specified in the Guidelines for the Depository Library System (1977). As this article demonstrates, regional librarians supported the concept of state plans because they believed that this process offered an excellent means to address their concerns. However, in only a few instances have the plans fulfilled the purpose which regional staff envisioned. Nonetheless, the foundation which they laid, if pursued and if the basic documentation underlying the depository program are rewritten, could lead to the type of changes sought by regional libraries.     

The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA): Validation for Use in Program Evaluation

This article examines the validity of the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA), a survey used to evaluate undergraduate research (UR) programs. The underlying structure of the survey was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis; also examined were correlations between different average scores, score reliability, and matches between numerical and textual item responses. The study found that four components of the survey represent separate but related constructs for cognitive skills and affective learning gains derived from the UR experience. Average scores from item blocks formed reliable but moderate to highly correlated composite measures. Additionally, some questions about student learning gains (meant to assess individual learning) correlated to ratings of satisfaction with external aspects of the research experience. The pattern of correlation among individual items suggests that items asking students to rate external aspects of their environment were more like satisfaction ratings than items that directly ask about student skills attainment. Finally, survey items asking about student aspirations to attend graduate school in science reflected inflated estimates of the proportions of students who had actually decided on graduate education after their UR experiences. Recommendations for revisions to the survey include clarified item wording and increasing discrimination between item blocks through reorganization.Undergraduate research (UR) experiences have long been an important component of science education at universities and colleges but have received greater attention in recent years, as they have been identified as important ways to strengthen preparation for advanced study and work in the science fields, especially among students from underrepresented minority groups (Tsui, 2007 ; Kuh, 2008 ). UR internships provide students with the opportunity to conduct authentic research in laboratories with scientist mentors, as students help design projects, gather and analyze data, and write up and present findings (Laursen et al., 2010 ). The promised benefits of UR experiences include both increased skills and greater familiarity with how science is practiced (Russell et al., 2007 ). While students learn the basics of scientific methods and laboratory skills, they are also exposed to the culture and norms of science (Carlone and Johnson, 2007 ; Hunter et al., 2007 ; Lopatto, 2010 ). Students learn about the day-to-day world of practicing science and are introduced to how scientists design studies, collect and analyze data, and communicate their research. After participating in UR, students may make more informed decisions about their future, and some may be more likely to decide to pursue graduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Bauer and Bennett, 2003 ; Russell et al., 2007 ; Eagan et al. 2013 ).While UR experiences potentially have many benefits for undergraduate students, assessing these benefits is challenging (Laursen, 2015 ). Large-scale research-based evaluation of the effects of UR is limited by a range of methodological problems (Eagan et al., 2013 ). True experimental studies are almost impossible to implement, since random assignment of students into UR programs is both logistically and ethically impractical, while many simple comparisons between UR and non-UR groups of students suffer from noncomparable groups and limited generalizability (Maton and Hrabowski, 2004 ). Survey studies often rely on poorly developed measures and use nonrepresentative samples, and large-scale survey research usually requires complex statistical models to control for student self-selection into UR programs (Eagan et al., 2013 ). For smaller-scale program evaluation, evaluators also encounter a number of measurement problems. Because of the wide range of disciplines, research topics, and methods, common standardized tests assessing laboratory skills and understandings across these disciplines are difficult to find. While faculty at individual sites may directly assess products, presentations, and behavior using authentic assessments such as portfolios, rubrics, and performance assessments, these assessments can be time-consuming and not easily comparable with similar efforts at other laboratories (Stokking et al., 2004 ; Kuh et al., 2014 ). Additionally, the affective outcomes of UR are not readily tapped by direct academic assessment, as many of the benefits found for students in UR, such as motivation, enculturation, and self-efficacy, are not measured by tests or other assessments (Carlone and Johnson, 2007 ). Other instruments for assessing UR outcomes, such as Lopatto’s SURE (Lopatto, 2010 ), focus on these affective outcomes rather than direct assessments of skills and cognitive gains.The size of most UR programs also makes assessment difficult. Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), one mechanism by which UR programs may be organized within an institution, are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), but unlike many other educational programs at NSF (e.g., TUES) that require fully funded evaluations with multiple sources of evidence (Frechtling, 2010 ), REUs are generally so small that they cannot typically support this type of evaluation unless multiple programs pool their resources to provide adequate assessment. Informal UR experiences, offered to students by individual faculty within their own laboratories, are often more common but are typically not coordinated across departments or institutions or accountable to a central office or agency for assessment. Partly toward this end, the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) was developed as a common assessment instrument that can be compared across multiple UR sites within or across institutions. It is meant to be used as one source of assessment information about UR sites and their students.The current research examines the validity of the URSSA in the context of its use as a self-report survey for UR programs and laboratories. Because the survey has been taken by more than 3400 students, we can test some aspects of how the survey is structured and how it functions. Assessing the validity of the URSSA for its intended use is a process of testing hypotheses about how well the survey represents its intended content. This ongoing process (Messick, 1993 ; Kane, 2001 ) involves gathering evidence from a range of sources to learn whether validity claims are supported by evidence and whether the survey results can be used confidently in specific contexts. For the URSSA, our method of inquiry focuses on how the survey is used to assess consortia of REU sites. In this context, survey results are used for quality assurance and comparisons of average ratings over years and as general indicators of program success in encouraging students to pursue graduate science education and scientific careers. Our research questions focus on the meaning and reliability of “core indicators” used to track self-reported learning gains in four areas and the ability of numerical items to capture student aspirations for future plans to attend graduate school in the sciences.