Suchergebnisse

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0–10; pupil ages 6–15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6–15 in grades 0–10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policymakers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0–10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue. ; publishedVersion

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0-10; pupil ages 6-15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6-15 in grades 0-10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policymakers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0-10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue.

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0–10; pupil ages 6–15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6–15 in grades 0–10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policymakers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0–10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue. ; publishedVersion

This book, built around a set of conversations with the author, aims to illuminate the lived reality of educational research. It explores the experience of research and asks what qualities are needed to face its challenges. Other books present lists of what to do and what not to do. Here, we find out what really happens - and why

The article initiates by presenting the context and effects of the uses of biopolitics, a notion that Foucault frames during a period of theoretical transition, when he operates important displacements in his analytics of power. In the second section, we take 45 articles that appeared in Brazilian main journals in the field of education, during the past fifteen years, and that referred either to the notion of biopolitics or biopower. We noticed that the problems confronted by Foucault during this biopolitical interlude have undoubtedly found an echo in the angst, hopes and obstacles faced by Brazilian researchers during the post-dictatorial times. We believe this happened, among other reasons, because of the paradox they were witnessing: the first steps Brazil was walking towards democratization of relations and institutions, at the very same time neoliberal practices and reforms were introduced into the horizon.

Publications of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) maintain that years of research in education have failed to produce a useful technology for teachers. Little is said to be known about teaching children beyond the potential of new findings such as mastery learning, time on task, and features of an appropriate school climate. These latter conclusions are in stark contrast to the large body of useful findings in the behavior analysis literature. Several possible reasons are discussed for the discrepancy in views between behavior analysts and educational researchers. The lack of acknowledgement of behavior analysis is viewed as a serious problem because of the control that the educational research establishment exerts over federal funding of research and the training of teachers. There is a growing use of some of the aspects of behavior analysis by educational researchers; however, the derivation is not acknowledged and there is little enlightenment about radical behaviorism. It is suggested that ABA should countercontrol the influence of AERA by incorporating doctoral students in educational research as students of behavior analysis, teaching the complexity of behaviorism, teaching the positions of the opposing camp to behavior analysis students. ABA can take an aggressive role in countercontrolling AERA by forming committees to insure (a) quality of treatment, (b) funding representation in government, (c) protection and qualified review of untenured behavior analysts, (d) expansion of certification.

A review of the book Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice by Maguerite G. Lodico, Dean T. Spaulding, and Katherine H. Voegtle published in 2006 by Jossey-Bass.