Lifelong learning and welfare reform

This is the second of two papers which explore the scope and limitations of lifelong learning as an object of policy. In the first (see Griffin 1999) the evolution of the social democratic perspective was described. According to this perspective, it was suggested, the attempt to render lifelong learning as an object of policy entailed a reductionist concept of learning, so that it stood for little more than the expansion of education and training provision. In the following paper, an alternative perspective on lifelong learning, also emerging from the policy literature, removes it from the possibility of traditional policy analysis, relocating it in culture, civil society and patterns of lifestyle, leisure and consumption. Analytic distinctions between education and learning, function and provision, policy and strategy, and markets and quasi-markets are employed to explore various policy models. It is suggested that this perspective on lifelong learning needs to be understood in relation to policies for welfare reform and the crisis of the welfare state. In effect, it amounts to the integration of education policy into wider policies for welfare reform.     

The significance of humanistic rhetoric in British public address

This study sought to answer the following questions: (1) What specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors are associated with the initiation of communicative interactions; and (2) Do these verbal and nonverbal behaviors vary according to the degree of acquaintanceship of the participants in the greeting situation.     

Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education?

This systematic review draws from and builds upon the results of a meta-analysis of the achievement effects of three types of interaction treatments in distance education: student–student, student–teacher, and student–content (Bernard et al., Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289, 2009). This follow-up study considers two forms of student–student interaction treatments, contextual interaction and designed interaction. Typical contextual interaction treatments contain the necessary conditions for student–student interaction to occur, but are not intentionally designed to create collaborative learning environments. By contrast, designed interaction treatments are intentionally implemented collaborative instructional conditions for increasing student learning. Our meta-analysis compared the effect of these two types of interaction treatments on student achievement outcomes. The results favored designed interaction treatments over contextual interaction treatments. Examples of designed interaction treatments and a discussion of study results and their potential implications for research and instruction in distance education and online learning are presented.