‘Never mind children’s cognition, what about mine?’ Teachers’ perspectives of the enactment of policy: The case of metacognition

IF 1.2 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Heather E. Branigan
{"title":"‘Never mind children’s cognition, what about mine?’ Teachers’ perspectives of the enactment of policy: The case of metacognition","authors":"Heather E. Branigan","doi":"10.1002/CURJ.101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". Educational policy in the UK and beyond increasingly focuses on promoting skills that encourage learners to be independent thinkers and to self-manage their own learning. Whilst the educational benefits of metacognition (i.e., thinking about and managing one’s own thinking) are widely acknowledged, little attention has been paid to teachers’ perspectives about the enactment of such approaches within the educational setting. Thus, this interview study seeks to investigate Scottish primary schools teachers’ perspectives about the enactment of policy, using metacognition as an exemplar case. Analysis produced two broad themes that distinguished between ‘bottom-up’ implementation of metacognitive approaches, and more commonly-described ‘top-down’ approaches promoted by local or national policy. The perceived ‘changing tide’ of externally-set top-down initiatives was described as particularly challenging for teachers to negotiate, resulting in a perceived crowding of the curriculum and associated ‘tick-boxing’ practices. Results are discussed in relation to the process of enactment – arguing that the predominance of top-down policy initiatives acts to restrict teachers’ agency by diminishing professionalism and promoting performativity.","PeriodicalId":46745,"journal":{"name":"Curriculum Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/CURJ.101","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Curriculum Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/CURJ.101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

. Educational policy in the UK and beyond increasingly focuses on promoting skills that encourage learners to be independent thinkers and to self-manage their own learning. Whilst the educational benefits of metacognition (i.e., thinking about and managing one’s own thinking) are widely acknowledged, little attention has been paid to teachers’ perspectives about the enactment of such approaches within the educational setting. Thus, this interview study seeks to investigate Scottish primary schools teachers’ perspectives about the enactment of policy, using metacognition as an exemplar case. Analysis produced two broad themes that distinguished between ‘bottom-up’ implementation of metacognitive approaches, and more commonly-described ‘top-down’ approaches promoted by local or national policy. The perceived ‘changing tide’ of externally-set top-down initiatives was described as particularly challenging for teachers to negotiate, resulting in a perceived crowding of the curriculum and associated ‘tick-boxing’ practices. Results are discussed in relation to the process of enactment – arguing that the predominance of top-down policy initiatives acts to restrict teachers’ agency by diminishing professionalism and promoting performativity.
“别管孩子们的认知,我的呢?”教师对政策制定的看法:以元认知为例
. 在英国和其他国家,教育政策越来越注重提高技能,鼓励学习者成为独立的思考者和自我管理自己的学习。虽然元认知的教育效益(即思考和管理自己的思维)得到了广泛认可,但很少有人关注教师在教育环境中实施这种方法的观点。因此,本访谈研究旨在调查苏格兰小学教师对政策制定的看法,使用元认知作为范例案例。分析产生了两个广泛的主题,区分了元认知方法的“自下而上”实施,以及更常见的由地方或国家政策推动的“自上而下”方法。外界设定的自上而下的倡议的“变化趋势”被认为对教师来说尤其具有挑战性,导致课程拥挤和相关的“打勾”做法。讨论了与制定过程有关的结果,认为自上而下的政策举措的优势通过降低专业性和促进绩效来限制教师的代理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Curriculum Journal
Curriculum Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信