Classroom assessment and education: challenging the assumptions of socialisation and instrumentality

The opportunity offered by the Umea Symposium to probe the intersection of quality and assessment immediately brings into focus a wider issue – that of the quality of education which assessment aspires to support. Prompted by recent research into formative assessment in Scottish primary school contexts, the paper explores how formative assessment has become associated with an overly benign understanding of learning which misrecognises the possibility of undesirable learning and does not seem to address the inherently political nature of education. Having illuminated the potential inequities of formative assessment practices, the paper then asks what role formative assessment might play to support an understanding of education that is not simply about the transmission of traditional social norms, but also aspires to illuminate their social construction and their political nature

Democracy, Citizenship and Education: From Socialisation to Subjectification

In this paper I discuss the nature of citizenship, the role of education and learning, and its connection with the public sphere. I ask whether we should understand citizenship as a social or a political identity, and show the risks of reducing democratic citizenship to issues of social cohesion and integration. I ask whether we should understand democracy as 'arche' (a definable order) or 'an-arche' (as fundamentally beyond order). I highlight the importance of understanding democracy in political rather than natural terms, and show the dangers of understanding democracy exclusively in terms of a definable socio-political order. I then introduce a distinction between two conceptions of civic learning: civic learning as socialisation and civic learning as subjectification, and argue for the importance of learning that is connected to engagement with the experiment of democracy. I highlight the experimental nature of democracy by emphasising that democracy should not be understood as the counting of individual preferences but as the transformation of individual 'wants' into collectively justifiable and supportable 'needs.' Against this background I suggest that the public sphere should not be understood as the arena in which such transformational processes take place, but that the very enactment of such a transformation creates moments of publicness that are fundamentally different from personal relations and market relations. I conclude by arguing that the alleged crisis in democracy should not be understood as a lack of the civic qualities of individuals but rather has to do with the lack of real democratic opportunities in which citizens can enact their democratic subjectivity

How does a competent teacher become a good teacher? On judgement, wisdom and virtuosity in teaching and teacher education.

The idea that teachers should be competent at what they do is difficult to contest. Perhaps this partly explains the popular appeal of competence-based approaches to teaching and teacher education, which, in recent decades, have spread rapidly across many countries around the world. With regard to the practical implementation of the idea of competence, particularly within the field of teacher education, there are a number of problems. Aristotle provides a compelling and useful set of concepts for understanding the role of judgement in teaching. This chapter tries to make clear why we need judgement in education, where we need judgement, and what kinds of judgement we need in education. It tries to answer the question of how a competent teacher might become a good teacher. The chapter suggests that the difference between a competent and a good teacher lies in the ability to bring judgement to the task of teaching

Art, Artists and Pedagogy

This volume has been brought together to generate new ideas and provoke discussion about what constitutes arts education in the twenty-first century, both within the institution and beyond. Art, Artists and Pedagogy is intended for educators who teach the arts from early childhood to tertiary level, artists working in the community, or those studying arts in education from undergraduate to Masters or PhD level

Sporadic democracy: Education, democracy and the question of inclusion

In this paper I take up the question of the relationship between democracy and inclusion. I present the deliberative turn in democratic theory as an attempt to overcome ‘external exclusion’ and discuss Iris Young’s work as an attempt to overcome ‘internal exclusions.’ I argue that although attempts to make democracy more inclusive are laudable, they are ultimately based upon a colonial conception of democratisation, one in which inclusion is seen as a process where those who are already on the inside include others into their sphere. I use the work of Jacques Rancière to argue for an understanding of democratisation as the interruption of the existing political order from the outside in the name of equality. This can not only help us to think differently about the role of inclusion in democracy. It also urges us to see that there are opportunities for the democratisation of education that lie beyond the inclusion of ‘newcomers’ into the existing democratic order

How to use pragmatism pragmatically: Suggestions for the 21st century

First paragraph: I am never entirely sure what those who call themselves pragmatists or who declare an affinity with pragmatism actually believe in. Pragmatists would probably respond that this is the wrong question, as what matters is not what they believe in but what they do with their beliefs – or, to be more precise, what follows from their beliefs. After all, one of the founding insights of pragmatism is Charles Peirce's contention that different beliefs are distinguished solely “by the different modes of action to which they give rise” so that “(i)f beliefs do not differ in this respect (...) then no mere differences in the manner of consciousness of them can make them different beliefs, any more than playing a tune in different keys is playing different tunes” (Peirce 1955, p.29). Yet even if it is granted that we should focus first and foremost on the consequences of pragmatism, it cannot be denied that pragmatism also consists of a set of beliefs such as, in John Dewey's case, a belief in naturalism, in communication, in the scientific method, in intelligence and in democracy. The problem is that many critics of pragmatism have focused on these beliefs rather than on the particular arguments in which these beliefs function. This has led to much misunderstanding about pragmatism, not only amongst critics of pragmatism but sometimes also amongst those who are sympathetic to pragmatism

Knowing What, Knowing How, or Knowing Where? How Technology Challenges Concepts of Knowledge

When bringing innovative technology into school education it has been challenging to get full benefits from the technology. Instead of seeking new ways of teaching we tend to adapt the use of technology to traditional ways of teaching. This can relate to the fact that we lack theoretical concepts that help us rethink and revise our practices. In Norwegian curriculum we see different learning discourses represented, that makes it difficult to change our concept of knowledge. It is therefore time to look for new ways of understanding the concept of knowledge, to be able to build new perspective on learning and teaching that opens for a more innovate way of using technology in education. George Siemens’ connectivism gives interesting contributions to this transformative process, and may inspire to new concepts of knowledge

Encountering Foucault in lifelong learning

First paragraph: “The only important problem is what happens on the ground.” (Foucault 1991a, p.83) The chapters in this book stage a range of different encounters with the work of Michel Foucault. Through them we not only gain a better understanding of the potential of Foucault’s work. At the same time the chapters shed a different light on policies and practices of lifelong learning. There is, therefore, a double encounter in this book: we encounter Foucault in lifelong learning and we encounter lifelong learning through the eyes of Foucault. Both encounters are, of course, important. Whereas the stated purpose of this book is to gain a new and different understanding of lifelong learning and, through this, to contribute to a re-conceptualisation of lifelong learning, the book also functions as a ‘test’ of Foucault’s ideas. It reveals strengths and weaknesses of using Foucault to analyse and understand educational practices and processes and the wider strategies and techniques of governing in latemodern, neo-liberal societies. For this final chapter this raises two questions: What has this book achieved in understanding and conceptualising lifelong learning differently? And what does this tell us about the significance of Foucault’s work for this particular endeavour? To address these questions I will, in this final chapter, focus on three issues: (1) the nature of Foucauldian analysis; (2) the question of normativity; and (3) the opportunities for change. In what follows I will first try to characterise the main thrust of the chapters against the background of Foucault’s ideas on governmentality and power. I will then focus on what I see as one of the most interesting dimensions of this book, viz., the question as to what follows from Foucauldian analysis. I will first characterise how the different authors answer this question. I will then discuss what I see as the specific ‘nature’ of Foucauldian analysis, particularly with respect to the relationship between power and knowledge. This will provide the background for my reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the contributions in this book which, finally, will bring me back to the question of normativity in Foucauldian analysis and the question as to how such analysis can support change

Theorizing learning through complexity: An educational critique

Ton Jörg has done a magnificent job in outlining a new way to understand the dynamics of learning and, more specifically, learning that results from “peer‐to‐peer” and “face‐toface” interaction. Jörg takes inspiration from Vygotsky’s ideas on the role of interaction in the development of higher mental functioning and uses ideas from complexity to highlight the nonlinear and “generative” character of human interaction. He introduces the notion of “bootstrapping” to better understand the dynamics of such processes and ends up with a view of learning as a process of “co‐creating each other in progressive experience.” Jörg’s main “target,” so to speak, consists of linear and non‐generative ways of understanding learning, education and human interaction. Jörg, on the other hand, presents learning and development as radically open processes and argues that because of their radically open character we should (re‐)organize our educational practices so that they will facilitate such open, undetermined and generative forms of learning and interaction