The Implementation of Progress Files in Higher Education: Reflection as National Policy

Progress files, involving personal development planning (PDP), are becoming a feature of many higher education systems internationally. In the UK they will become mandatory for all undergraduate students from 2005. This presents a major implementation challenge, because while reflection has been a cornerstone of practice in some areas of higher education for a considerable time, its generalisation as national policy changes its discursive location. The paper presents findings from a case study of the implementation of PF in one UK Higher Education Institution (HEI). It reports on how staff in one institution understand PF in the context of national policy, and on how they interpret the challenges they face in facilitating reflection for all students. The paper argues that pedagogical innovations take on a different meaning when applied to the system as a whole.     

Practical Considerations When Using Benchmarking for Accountability in Higher Education

The qualitative study on which this article is based examined key individuals’ perceptions, both within a research university community and beyond in its external governing board, of how to improve benchmarking as an accountability method in higher education. Differing understanding of benchmarking revealed practical implications for using it as an accountability tool. A change model is presented for enhancing the effectiveness of benchmarking in higher education communities.Sue D. Achtemeier received the B.A. in mathematics and computer science with High Honors and the M.S. in mathematics from Florida State University and the Ph.D. in Higher Education from the University of Georgia. She has held teaching positions in Illinois and Georgia and is now Assistant Director for Institutional Effectiveness for the University of Georgia with particular interest in accreditation and accountability. Ronald D. Simpson is Professor Emeritus of Higher Education and Science Education and Director Emeritus of the Office of Instructional Support and Development at the University of Georgia. He holds degrees in the biological sciences and in science education from the University of Tennessee and the University of Georgia and continues to teach and advise doctoral students in UGA’s Institute of Higher Education.     

Which Words? Words which 4 to 6 Year Old Children Use in Their Writing

The use of high frequency word lists has re-emerged recently as a useful part of the knowledge base of primary teachers of literacy. The National Literacy Project framework for teaching makes explicit use of such lists. In this article Laura Huxford and her colleagues examine the contents of word lists and make some useful observations about the words it appears important to teach children to read at Key Stage 1.     

Juggling multiple accountability systems: how three principals manage these tensions in Ontario,Canada

Accountability in education is not new. Schools have always been accountable in one way or another to the communities they serve, regardless of the policy environment of the time (Elmore, The Educational Forum, 69:134–142, 2005). This article explores how three principals from Ontario, Canada manage the tensions of multiple accountability systems in their work. Findings indicate that the principals were able to find ways to be accountable to a variety of communities and ideals by prioritizing and honoring local needs and beliefs within the larger provincial mandate. Principals could not ignore the various accountability pressures; indeed, their success hinged on the ability to negotiate them. This delicate balancing act requires school principals to develop skills necessary to successfully juggle these competing demands.     

Single‐sex classes in co‐educational schools

This research investigated social and academic outcomes from single‐sex classrooms in a Tasmanian coeducational government primary school. Interviews, observations and surveys formed the basis of the evidence. Teachers, parents and children reported positive benefits from the class organisation, but these differed according to gender. Staff identified increased confidence and higher self‐esteem among girls, whereas boys developed increased motivation and more commitment to schoolwork. Teachers and parents noted that boys’ accountability and self‐discipline improved. Teachers adopted different strategies from those used with mixed‐gender classes and gained higher levels of satisfaction from teaching, attributable to increased children’s time ‘on task’. Paradoxically, standardised school testing indicated no increase in academic achievements. However, there may be an extended lag between establishing changed social relationships and measurable academic outcomes, suggesting that if the new class structure is to achieve its full potential, it should be established early in primary school and continue to adolescence.     

Deal‐making and rule‐breaking: behind the façade of equity in academia

A glass ceiling for women still exists in academia after two decades of equal employment opportunity (EEO) legislation in Australia. There are complex factors that when combined make gender inequity in the higher education sector highly resistant to change. Using personal histories as a reflexive device, the paper makes explicit the embedded male patterns of behaviour in academia that operate beneath the façade of policies and rules put into place to counter inequity. In particular, the paper focuses on the cognitive dissonance individuals experience due to the disparity between formal organizational policies promoting equity, such as workload allocations, and perceptions of the unequal opportunities for women and men. Using social identity theory and the leader member exchange (LMX) framework, the daily experiences of three academic women are interpreted, the impediments to equality identified, and suggestions made for more fundamental change to gendered organizational structures within academia. The analysis of such behaviours shows that the traditional emphasis of EEO legislation on formal policies and procedures to bring about gender equity in academia needs to be accompanied by cultural change programs that make explicit and challenge behaviours that reproduce and reinforce male hegemony in academia.