Your search found 3114 results.

Descriptors:
Educational Policy; Foreign Countries; Professional Recognition; Learning Theories; Communities of Practice; Focus Groups; Employment Qualifications; Interviews; Mail Surveys; Questionnaires; Context Effect; Labor Force; Educational Change; Child Care; Teacher Attitudes

Abstract:
This article reports on the views of early years practitioners in England from settings that were identified as "reluctant to engage" with one of the government's key policies, the introduction of Early Years Professional Status (EYPS), to drive forwards workforce reform. Focus groups, interviews and a survey were undertaken in 2009 with 35 respondents in 15 early years settings. The article uses concepts from Wenger's situated theory of learning (1998) to locate the policy and practitioners' views of its implications in its socio-historical context with regard to early years professionalisation. The findings are considered against a conceptual framework for successful workforce reform to suggest how, by addressing areas of perceived "restrictive" practice, the move to increase status and professional qualifications in early years may become more inclusive of the current workforce. (Contains 2 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
College Faculty; Tenure; College Governing Councils; Job Security; Classification; Teacher Salaries; Professional Recognition; College Administration

Abstract:
The University of Maryland at College Park is poised to embark on an unprecedented effort to improve the conditions of its faculty members who are off the tenure track. The campus's University Senate, which represents faculty members, administrators, students, and staff members, is scheduled to vote on an internal task-force report that extensively documents the disparities between different categories of faculty members there and proposes sweeping changes intended to give non-tenure-track faculty members more pay, job security, respect, and clout. A University Senate vote in favor of the report will not amount to an explicit endorsement of its recommendations, which include calls for the institution to give non-tenure-track faculty members new titles, pay them at levels commensurate with their tenure-track colleagues, shield them from extensive demands to perform work for which they are not compensated, and improve their prospects of obtaining long-term employment contracts. However, should the University Senate approve the report, as is expected, the campus's administration, faculty members, and various shared-governance bodies will be obliged to seriously consider carrying out what the document proposes. The report's findings, in themselves, break ground in terms of the detail and candor with which they describe how much the institution relies on non-tenure-track faculty members and how little many of them receive for their efforts. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Psychology; Psychologists; Beliefs; Role Perception; Misconceptions; Professional Identity; Public Opinion; Reputation; Professional Recognition; Reader Response

Abstract:
Not being taken seriously can be an occupational hazard for psychologists, but Lilienfeld's (February-March 2012) thought-provoking article (see record 2011-12007-001) provides a useful framework for thinking about (a) the forms that skepticism about psychological science can take, (b) the roots of such skepticism, and (c) how one might address or even undermine it. But as Lilienfeld (2012, p. 117) noted, "The sources of public skepticism toward psychology are multifarious," and his list "is surely not exhaustive." We agree and believe that another source deserves emphasis, one that psychologists ignore at their peril. Specifically, what psychologists have to say about human behavior can clash with people's beliefs and intuitions. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Psychology; Scientific Principles; Scientific Methodology; Criticism; Misconceptions; Professional Identity; Professional Recognition; Reputation; Evidence; Reader Response

Abstract:
According to the philosophers of science Hempel and Oppenheim (1948), who were cited appropriately by Lilienfeld (see record 2011-12007-001) in his article, scientific explanations serve to answer "why" questions. Clarifying the logic of explanations in the sciences, they developed famously the notion that phenomena can be explained (using deduction) by means of general laws and by means of certain antecedent conditions. What is evident from all we know from the philosophy of science is that Lilienfeld offered us an interpretation. Although Lilienfeld provided good arguments and good reasons for the explanandum (e.g., why the public is skeptical toward psychology), citing studies and data, he clearly did not provide a deductive-nomological explanation in the sense of Hempel and Oppenheim or in the sense of the natural sciences. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Evidence; Psychology; Reputation; Public Opinion; Scientific Principles; Reader Response; Professional Recognition; Misconceptions

Abstract:
Responds to the comments made by Newman et al., Tryon, and Teo on the current author's original article. In the original article on public skepticism toward psychology, the author delineated eight reasons why many laypersons are dubious of our field's scientific status. The author argued that although some of these sources (e.g., hindsight bias, the illusion of understanding) reflect public misunderstandings regarding the application of science to psychological questions, others (e.g., our field's reluctant embrace of evidence-based clinical practices) reflect professional psychology's failure to uphold rigorous scientific standards. The author was gratified to read these three stimulating commentaries, if only because they suggest that my article accomplished its principal aim: to engender thoughtful debate concerning the sources of, and remedies for, psychology's problematic scientific status in the public eye. The authors all noted significant points of consensus with the current author's analysis but also identified areas in which they found my coverage to be incomplete or inaccurate. The author welcomes these constructive criticisms and address each in turn. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Physical Education; Teacher Certification; Physical Education Teachers; Standards; Reflective Teaching; Faculty Development; Professional Recognition; Teacher Attitudes; Administrator Attitudes

Abstract:
National Board Certification (NBC) is a voluntary advanced certification process designed to recognize effective and accomplished teachers who meet high standards related to what they are able to achieve with students in the classroom. Research has indicated that physical education teachers who have gained this certification are more reflective, more focused on student learning, and more respected by other teachers and administrators. The purpose of this article is to present five benefits of achieving NBC, as well as suggestions for professional development activities that physical education teachers can replicate in order to enjoy professional benefits, even without NBC. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Academic Freedom; Tenure; Profiles; Information Sources; Reputation; Periodicals; Labor Market; Writing for Publication; Scholarship; Faculty Publishing; Professional Recognition; Faculty Promotion; Library Role; Electronic Publishing; Information Services; Vendors; Teacher Attitudes

Abstract:
With faculty balking at the price of academic journals, can other digital publishing options get traction? University libraries are no strangers to one of the most popular online alternatives, the open-access archive. These archives enable scholars to upload work--including drafts of articles that are published later in subscription journals--so they can be accessed for free by the public. In the current higher education environment, though, no up-and-coming scholar can advance his career by placing articles in an open-access archive alone. In academia, there's no prestige in self-publishing. Fair or not, prestige matters. Publishing in high-profile journals--or failing to do so--can make or break a career in academia, where the American Association of University Professors estimates the ratio of tenure-track openings to new doctorates at around 1:4. Having an article appear in a big-name publication isn't just a win for the scholar. Schools use the prestige of their faculty to bargain for bigger budgets, draw new hires, and recruit students. Prospective students look for programs with high-profile faculty whose reputations will give them a boost in the grad school, post-doctorate, and job markets. The stakes are high, particularly in the hard sciences where there's big money to be won. Which explains why new journals--or new digital modes of scholarship--are slow to take off. It remains to be seen whether there's enough pent-up frustration in academia to overturn systems that are stacked in favor of publishers. There are encouraging signs that new open-access journals--following fair publishing practices--can achieve success online. While much of the anger about journal pricing has been aimed at Elsevier, the truth remains the company is a for-profit business that will charge what the market can bear. The real culprit in all this is the tenure-track culture of higher education that places a market-distorting emphasis on publishing in prestigious journals, often at the expense of academic freedom and efficiency. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Biology; Professional Recognition; Educational Change; Barriers; Professional Identity; Pedagogical Content Knowledge; Professional Development; Time Perspective; Incentives; Conflict; Performance Factors; Change Strategies; Educational Practices; Teaching (Occupation); Educational Research; Performance Technology; Organizational Development

Abstract:
A substantial body of literature has highlighted many factors that impede faculty change, the most common of which are a lack of training, time, and incentives. However, there may be other barriers--unacknowledged and unexamined barriers--that might prove to be equally important. In particular, the tensions between a scientist's professional identity and the call for faculty pedagogical change are rarely, if ever, raised as a key impediment to widespread biology education reform. In this article, the authors propose that scientists' professional identities--how they view themselves and their work in the context of their discipline and how they define their professional status--may be an invisible and underappreciated barrier to undergraduate science teaching reform, one that is not often discussed, because very few educators reflect upon their professional identity and the factors that influence it. The authors' primary goal in this article is to raise the following question: Will addressing training, time, and incentives be sufficient to achieve widespread pedagogical change in undergraduate biology education, or will modifying their professional identity also be necessary? Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Scholarship; Research; Instruction; Teaching (Occupation); Relationship; Status; Comparative Analysis; College Faculty; Teacher Effectiveness; Professional Recognition; Rewards; Career Development; Policy Formation

Abstract:
The need to provide more significant rewards for "teaching excellence" in order to provide parity of status with research in higher education has often been asserted. This paper examines ways in which the idea of rewarding excellent teaching has been understood and translated within a large teaching and learning initiative that was overtly based on rewarding and recognising excellent teaching. The initiative studied here, was the formation of 74 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, established by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 2004. The findings are based on research that traced the "translation" of this policy aim in 15 institutions. The research found that the process of translation resulted in multiple interpretations of this agenda, including some that rejected the notion completely, raising some pertinent questions about policy formation in relation in teaching and learning. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Teacher Strikes; Unions; Educational Change; Administrative Change; Centralization; Curriculum; Trust (Psychology); Professional Recognition; Teacher Participation; Semi Structured Interviews

Abstract:
Striking for nine days in 2008, teachers in Bellevue carved a distinctive path through the contradictory movements for professional reform unionism and national accountability. In addition to compensation, Bellevue's teachers struck over the top-down prescriptive management epitomized by the Gates Foundation supported "Curriculum Web." Where district administrators envisioned the web as a community resource, teachers complained that its detailed daily lesson plans hamstrung their ability to teach effectively. Teachers returned to work only when a memorandum of understanding was signed recognizing their authority to deviate from the district's web-based curriculum. To achieve reform minded goals, teachers relied upon traditional union militancy. (Contains 4 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website