No abstract

Internationally, both in popular and scientific media, debates occasionally emerge concerning the possible (negative) consequences of feminisation tendencies in the teaching staff. In these discussions, various assumptions about the 'nature' of male and female teachers and masculinity and femininity are expressed. Male and female teachers are often presumed to differ in teaching styles, capacities and effects on both the teaching profession and the pupils. The arguments used in these debates only seldom refer to particular theoretical grounds or to empirical evidence. Moreover, apart from Sandra Acker's essay 'Gender and teachers' work' in 1995, educational research lacks an up-to-date review of teacher gender. Therefore, this article aims to provide insight into contemporary theoretical gender perspectives. It also intends to connect these with empirical research that takes teacher gender into account. Most of the research studies referred to in this article do not explicitly state their underlying theoretical principles. Yet, since these studies have distinct research foci, research questions, methodologies and conclusions, they appear to depart from a variety of gender conceptualisations. Therefore, in this article the differences between these conceptualisations will be examined and the divergent theoretical assumptions underlying these studies will be revealed. The two most widespread and disparate perspectives in gender theory are the essentialist perspectives on the one hand and the constructionist perspectives on the other. The differences between them are made up by the degree to which explanations are deterministic and focused on the individual rather than on the social and cultural level. Drawing upon this theoretical contrast, we divided the body of research on teacher gender into two divergent research traditions: sex differences research and gender dynamics research. The research questions, underlying theoretical principles and methodologies of these two traditions are examined. Gender theoryA puzzling assortment of gender theories can be observed in scientific literature.

No abstract

Situating interdisciplinarity in VIVES. Nowadays professionals function in a society that is changing faster and faster. They face complex questions and challenges for which a mere (mono)disciplinary approach is no longer sufficient (Holley, 2017; Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning, Mulder, 2009). For VIVES, it is therefore both a necessity and an asset that students are equipped with solid domain specific knowledge and skills as well as with broader competences, the so-called competences for the 21st century. One of those broader competences is the competence for interdisciplinary cooperation.VIVES is investing a lot in interdisciplinarity. In our VIVES-research (VIVES, 2016), we explicitly choose for interdisciplinary centres of expertise. Also in the lab-approach of education, our make-lab, a care-lab and a simulation-lab are seen as real hubs for interdisciplinarity. In our VIVES-vision on education, we aim to prepare student for the jobs and the society of tomorrow (VIVES, 2014). That is why we so strongly stress the importance of interdisciplinary competences in our policy documents: the VIVES vision on education, the VIVES-competences for the 21st century and the VIVES-framework for quality assurance of our study programmes (VIVES, 2018). Our educational policy plan for the period 2017-2022 points out the necessity to create enough space for interdisciplinary cooperation in the curricula and demands that every study programme is cooperating interdisciplinary with at least one other study programme in at least one course (VIVES, 2017).

No abstract