Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments

Fanghanel, Joelle

doi:10.1080/0307507042000261553

Cited by 47 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The idea of communities of practice has been quite widely applied in the social sciences in recent years, particularly to studies of organisations and professions (e.g., Hendry 1996), and, more recently, in educational research (e.g., Fanghanel 2004;Fuller et al 2005;Trowler and Knight 2000).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis

Tight

2007

High Educ

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article builds upon existing research which has been mapping and analysing the field of higher education research, and, in particular, on the analysis of the articles (n = 406) in 17 specialist higher education journals published in the English language outside of North America during the year 2000. It extends that analysis by examining the citations (n = 10,065) given in the articles, in particular the patterns of co-citation. This enables a clearer identification of the tribes or communities of practice that occupy the territory of higher education research. An attempt is be made to identify the key members of these tribes or communities, and to chart the key relationships within and between them.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis

Tight

2007

High Educ

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notion of differences between espoused theory and practice in higher education has a long history and there has been a considerable amount of work in this area from a range of perspectives (for recent examples see Fanghanel 2004;Kane et al 2004;Sandretto et al 2002;Trigwell et al 2005). The notion of the difficulties of practice with regard to generic attributes was outlined by De La Harpe et al (2000) who point to staff resistance to a 'topdown' approach, time pressures and lack of skill and confidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Generic attributes as espoused theory: the importance of context

Jones

2008

High Educ

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been considerable interest in generic attributes in higher education for over a decade and yet while generic skills or attributes are an important aspect of policy, there is often a lack of consistency between beliefs about the importance of these skills and attributes and the degree to which exist in teaching practice. There has been an assumption that these attributes exist outside of the disciplinary context, yet the findings of this study suggest that they are strongly influenced by the disciplinary culture in which they are taught. The study reported in this paper examines the apparent gap between ideal notions of generic attributes and their enactment in teaching practice. This qualitative study examined the teaching of generic attributes in five disciplines (physics, history, economics, medicine and law) in two Australian universities. It found that the notion of generic attributes is highly complex and while attributes such as critical thinking, problem solving and communication are valued by teaching staff they are often implicit in teaching. This gap between what is valued and what is actually taught is a result of variation in interpretation of generic attributes, the difficulties of reducing complex attributes to definable learning outcomes and practical constraints on teaching caused by factors such as large classes. Furthermore, it can be explained by the finding that generic attributes are part of the epistemic culture of the disciplines and often remain tacit. The findings of this study have significant implications for scholarship, policy and pedagogy.

show abstract

“…However, most of this research has not been discussed in terms of structure and agency. Whilst there are some notable exceptions to this (Fanghanel, 2004(Fanghanel, , 2008Mclean, 2006;Shay, 2005;Trowler, 1998), none explicitly discuss what it means to attempt to account for structure and agency in researching TLA in higher education. This is a pity because thinking about how we account for structure and agency raises some fundamental conceptual and methodological issues that, whilst routinely discussed in textbooks on social science methodology (for example Silverman, 2001), are largely ignored in research into TLA in higher education.…”

Section: What Is At Stake In Structure and Agency?mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…A fourth approach is to see TLA interactions as involving interactions within or between systems (for example see Fanghanel, 2004;Haggis, 2004). These systems can be seen in a number of ways: in terms of interacting social domains (Layder, 1997); of interacting activity systems, (Engeströ m, 2001); or of dynamic systems as in complexity theory (Byrne, 1998;Fogel, Lyra, & Valsiner, 1997).…”

Section: The Relationship Between Units Of Analysis In Research Into mentioning

confidence: 98%

Accounting for structure and agency in ‘close-up’ research on teaching, learning and assessment in higher education

Ashwin

2008

International Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments

Cited by 47 publications

References 5 publications

Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis

Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis

Generic attributes as espoused theory: the importance of context

Accounting for structure and agency in ‘close-up’ research on teaching, learning and assessment in higher education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About