FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2896484614> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2896484614 endingPage "410" @default.
• W2896484614 startingPage "408" @default.
• W2896484614 abstract "This guide accompanies the following article: Boylan, M., Adams, G., Willis, B., Coldwell, M. & Demack, S. (2018) Theorising variation in engagement in professional and curriculum development: Performativity, capital, systems and purpose. Review of Education, https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3140 Policymakers and school leaders seek to improve the quality of teaching through curriculum innovations and professional development programmes, increasingly drawing on evidence-based approaches. For innovations involving teacher professional learning, a causal connection is posited between professional development activities, teacher engagement in them, changed practices and outcomes for learners. However, implementation and teachers’ engagement in professional development activity varies. Reasons for this include the influence of both the local and wider systemic environment in which the activity takes place and actors’ relationships to these environments. Currently, both environments and actors’ relationships are often shaped by performativity discourses and pressures. Typical implementation and process evaluation methodologies are limited by a focus on the easily measurable, often using tools that do not support fine-grained understanding of how actors’ situations, purposes and systemic influences, and the interrelationships between these, mediate and shape different degrees of participation. Developing more in-depth accounts are hindered by a relative lack of theorisation of context in relation to professional development. The paper uses a set of theoretical constructs to provide a stronger account of the variation and engagement in participation in such activity, with particular attention paid to the way school and teachers’ positioning within performativity systems influences participation. Constructs employed are teachers and schools’ positioning in terms of relative degrees of systemic privilege or disadvantage—understood as economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital—figured worlds and system coupling. The paper demonstrates that two of the ways governmental education policymakers seek to improve the quality of teaching—through, first, the use of accountability measures and, second, professional development and innovation programmes—can have contradictory effects, leading to differences in the capacity of schools to engage in and lead innovations and professional development. Important here is the extent of alignment between the school and department's culture—its figured world and purposes—and the purposes of the innovation or professional development. One specific way to address this is to ensure that government-funded innovations seek to involve the commitment of school leaders to allow participating teachers to engage in professional experimentation. Another way is to build into professional development programmes support for participants to act as ‘adaptive system leaders’—in other words, teacher leaders who consciously change the situation in which they are working and so understand the dynamics of change. These implications for government policymakers are paralleled for those developing local policies for schools or clusters of schools such as multi-academy trusts. Attention needs to be paid to avoiding contradictions between pressures on teachers to perform and on effective professional development that should often promote professional experimentation. Teacher leaders need support for agency to lead change adaptively in response to local circumstances. A second important implication is that the study indicates that certain types of school are more able to engage in and take up opportunities. The paper identifies that government policy in relation to performativity and quasi-marketisation may undermine its other policy priorities for social mobility, ‘closing the gap’ and programmes such as the pupil premium. Policymakers and funders of innovations and professional development can potentially ameliorate these effects by recognising the need to offer additional resource and incentives to schools in most need. To some extent this is being addressed in England through the Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund (TLIF) and Opportunity Areas initiatives. Even so, there can be gaps between rhetoric and even the performance of collaboration or sharing on the one hand, and a collective engagement in experimentation on the other. For policymakers, funders and school leaders, addressing ways to improve engagement and participation in professional development opportunities such as the MRP is clearly important, and if conditions are optimised for engagement then improved pupil outcomes may follow. Implicitly, optimal conditions involve a looser coupling to performativity systems or indeed a loosening of these peformativity systems. There is some evidence in England of the schools inspection service Ofsted reflecting on the negative consequences of overly focussing on examination outcomes as the main marker of school quality. The study reported in this paper supports such reflections. A further implication of this analysis is that well-positioned schools may come to dominate the professional development opportunities made available, or at least flourish from them the most - indeed they may already be doing so. At the same time, other schools that are arguably in greater need are not able to fully access such opportunities owing to other inhibiting factors. School leaders who are committed to teachers’ experimentation and professional learning can consider the examples of schools discussed in the paper such as Beech and Sycamore in which teachers are supported to engage in PD opportunities in spite of accountability pressures. This suggests the need to decouple teachers and leaders from performativity systems, at least in relation to innovations. At schools such as Hawthorn and Maple, which are high capital and entrepreneurial, leaders might consider the extent to which they are ‘walking their talk’ in terms of enacting innovation in their own schools. In all schools, it is clear that if teachers who engage in external professional development are not coupled to the department then the potential benefits will be restricted to the teachers participating. Organisations providing professional development opportunities and professional development facilitators should consider including within programmes and PD activities, content on aspects of the micro-politics of instigating and leading change in the classroom and when working with colleagues." @default.
• W2896484614 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2896484614 creator A5005437683 @default.
• W2896484614 creator A5011909292 @default.
• W2896484614 creator A5033590932 @default.
• W2896484614 creator A5035811178 @default.
• W2896484614 creator A5066504890 @default.
• W2896484614 date "2018-10-01" @default.
• W2896484614 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2896484614 title "Context and Implications Document for: Theorising variation in engagement in professional and curriculum development: Performativity, capital, systems and purpose" @default.
• W2896484614 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3152" @default.
• W2896484614 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2896484614 type Work @default.
• W2896484614 sameAs 2896484614 @default.
• W2896484614 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2896484614 countsByYear W28964846142021 @default.
• W2896484614 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2896484614 hasAuthorship W2896484614A5005437683 @default.
• W2896484614 hasAuthorship W2896484614A5011909292 @default.
• W2896484614 hasAuthorship W2896484614A5033590932 @default.
• W2896484614 hasAuthorship W2896484614A5035811178 @default.
• W2896484614 hasAuthorship W2896484614A5066504890 @default.
• W2896484614 hasBestOaLocation W28964846141 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C2776327626 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C51067260 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C107993555 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C144024400 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C151730666 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C19417346 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C2776327626 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C2779343474 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C47177190 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C51067260 @default.
• W2896484614 hasConceptScore W2896484614C86803240 @default.
• W2896484614 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2896484614 hasLocation W28964846141 @default.
• W2896484614 hasOpenAccess W2896484614 @default.
• W2896484614 hasPrimaryLocation W28964846141 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W1995454762 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W2044513408 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W2090600277 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W2288825672 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W2944717512 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W3172594685 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W4200177809 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W4291555482 @default.
• W2896484614 hasRelatedWork W4303986246 @default.
• W2896484614 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W2896484614 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2896484614 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2896484614 magId "2896484614" @default.
• W2896484614 workType "article" @default.