Rozprawy doktorskie na temat „Educational framework”

The compounding experiences of colonial miseducation of youth of color, neoliberal policies and logics in urban communities, colonial logics that render the role of spirituality in social movements as invisible, and adultism in legal and social institutions constrain the transformative possibilities of youth agency in social movements. This study explored (a) how educators working in youth movements can build a decolonizing paradigm and practice for transformative organizing and (b) new paradigmatic interventions and theoretical directions that can help inform a transformative youth organizing approach. The research was conducted through a decolonizing interpretive research methodology (Darder, 2015a) and utilized the interrelated lenses of critical pedagogy and decolonizing pedagogy, in order to gain a historicity of scholarly discussions about the logics of coloniality, social movement theories, and youth-organizing frameworks across various texts. By utilizing the decolonizing interpretive methodology and decolonizing and critical pedagogy theoretical frameworks, this study found that a decolonizing social movement framework for transformative youth organizing calls for (a) creating counterhegemonic havens that create solidarity spaces between youth and adults; (b) building authentic revolution through communion between youth and adults, community-building, and communion with indigenous peoples and the Earth; (c) cultivating a sense of love that sustains community bonds to facilitate healing; (d) promoting healing through engaging in dialectics and dialogue; and (e) creating opportunities for agency and creation to implement the praxis of transformative youth organizing. The findings support the need for adults seeking to authentically be in solidarity with youth to engage in transformative justice practices that help communities collectively heal from colonial violence and engage in a counterhegemonic praxis of creating new transformative and liberatory possibilities in communities.

Research shows that out-of-school factors potentially have a greater impact on student outcomes yet our interventions remain focused on in-school factors. This thesis proposes that education reform efforts should learn from the widely accepted social determinants of health framework. The social determinants of health framework has lead to great strides in health equity in the us. Us education however remains deeply rooted in inequitable origins despite centuries of efforts to improve outcomes. Through a literature review of the impact of social forces on educational outcomes a “social determinants of education” framework is proposed. The social determinants of education are proposed to be economic, food, physical environment, social environment, and health. This framework aims to coalesce education reform conversations around a common language of equity.

The purpose of this Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Project was to establish preliminary evidence for validity of the Kissick Framework for DNP education and practice of Family Nurse Practitioners (FNPs). The history of the education of nurse practitioners (NPs) was explored to determine which frameworks should be considered in planning future curricula. The current need for more primary care practitioners due to the Affordable Care Act and the response in nursing to increase the number of primary care providers is discussed.

The role of the NP has expanded and in 2004 the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) endorsed the DNP as the terminal practice degree to replace the Masters’ of Science in Nursing (MSN) requirement for NPs. Frameworks for education and practice of doctorally prepared FNPs were examined and compared to the Kissick Framework.

The Kissick Framework integrates the Essentials of Doctoral Education for Advanced Nursing Practice recommended by the AACN, the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF) Core Competencies, and Ida J. Orlando’s Theory of the Nurse-Patient Relationship. Preliminary evidence supports consideration of the Kissick Framework for the education of doctorally prepared FNPs and as a guide for practice.

School officials in a large district adopted a research-based teacher evaluation system, the Framework for Teaching (FFT). Despite a 4-year phase-in of the FFT, teachers’ evaluation ratings increased while student achievement results decreased. This disparity impacted the school district’s growth targets as set by the State Department of Education. If target growths are unmet, school administrators must relinquish school operations to the state. A bounded, qualitative case study was designed to explore administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the FFT and its influence on school administrators’ assessment of teachers’ instructional practices. Social constructivist and andragogy theories formed the study’s conceptual framework. A purposeful sample of 6 K-12 district administrators, who reviewed teacher performance, and 12 K-12 district teachers, who were evaluated using the FFT, volunteered to participate in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using open and axial coding. Key results included concerns with lack of time for conferences during the evaluation process, administrators’ skills to provide quality feedback to teachers, and their lack of content knowledge to improve teaching and learning in specific content areas. It was recommended that teachers receive evidence- based, constructive, and individualized feedback from the school administrator. Based on the findings, the Feedback Institute was developed to engage school administrators in professional development to learn how to provide substantive feedback using protocols and structures to support teacher growth and to use content specialists to address gaps in administrators’ content knowledge. These endeavors may contribute to positive social change by restructuring the teacher evaluation process to improve instructional practice, and, thus, enhance school improvement and student learning.

The hospital setting provides an environment for patients to receive medical care, for medical professionals to provide treatment, and for medical students and residents to learn the practice of medicine through supervised patient encounters. Education provided at the point of care allows students and residents to apply knowledge and develop clinical skills needed for medical practice. The hospital environment is also a confluence of learning and work, where applied learning takes place in an integrated and simultaneous manner with work duties. This setting, referred to as the clinical learning environment (CLE), is a focus for educators, scholars, administrators, regulators and accrediting agencies to understand, measure and improve it. While several instruments have been developed to measure the CLE, they suffer from great variation in subscales and content. The purpose of this study is to deconstruct the CLE, apply theories from related fields, and frame those theories in the context of the hospital setting to develop a conceptual framework for the CLE. A systematic review of the literature and thematic synthesis of existing research about the CLE provided evidence to inform and test a learning environment framework in the clinical setting. Data from qualitative CLE assessments, the ACGME Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Pathways to Excellence, and existing CLE measurement instruments informed these results. Findings showed that a CLE framework consists of three mediating factors: learning, people, and change. As the clinical setting is a unique environment for learning, the people dimension (as a community of practice) was found to be the most influential on learning outcomes for students. The dimension of change was found to be most influential from the perspective of improving organizational or work outcomes, including patient care, clinical quality and patient safety. Findings from this study provide researchers and scholars with a framework to for developing measures of clinical learning environment effectiveness, and informing practitioners of CLE components and relationships that impact both learning and organizational outcomes.

A growing collaboration between psychologists, neuroscientists, and educators has culminated in the emergence of a new academic discipline known as Mind, Brain and Education (MBE). MBE differs from previous efforts, such as educational neuroscience, in that it is focused on the problem of how we might bring findings from the learning sciences into the classroom. As such MBE is placed squarely in the classroom, and works through engaging teachers as primary participants. Hence, MBE must work through an awareness of the systems of education and within the current context of educational policy and practice if it is to find a firm grounding in educational reform. In many ways the goals of MBE are in alignment with the voices of educational leaders across the globe. Pedagogical approaches referred to as neuropedagogy or neuroeducation, emphasize the development of high level cognitive capacities, such as critical thinking and creativity and address the connection between motivation, emotions, sleep, stress, circadian rhythms and development in learning processes. The primary purpose of this study was to define the emerging field of MBE with respect to its goals, vision and potential to serve as a significant framework for education reform. Because the basic constructs of the field are still being developed, interviews with expert members of the MBE community, including academic researchers, consultants and other educational leaders were conducted using a grounded theory approach. The definition of MBE was highly complex, but contained central elements relevant to reform. Special attention to developing a curricular model of MBE resulted in a vision of a holistic approach centered on developmental and individual needs of the students. To further investigate the possible impact of neuroeducation on student outcomes, two existing curricular models—Waldorf and International Baccalaureate, were examined as examples of programs of neuropedagogy/neuroeducation. Findings indicated that examining curricular models currently in use holds promise for understanding the impact of the principles of neuroeducation on student outcomes and development and can serve as a first step towards developing a proof of concept for the field.

Reforms in teacher evaluation are enacted to increase student achievement. Although there is research on teacher evaluation and teacher quality, there is little that addresses effective teaching as conceptualized in Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, a commonly used evaluation tool. The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine which of the 4 domains and 76 elements of Danielson’s framework are viewed by award-winning teachers as having the greatest impact on effective teaching and learning. Constructivism formed the theoretical basis for this study. The research questions examined to what extent state and national teachers of the year perceive differences in the importance to effective teaching and learning across each of Danielson’s 4 domains and across the elements within those domains. A quantitative single-factor within-subject design was utilized. Framework for Teaching Survey importance ratings obtained from state teachers of the year for the past 6 years (N = 350) were compared using repeated measure one-way analysis of variances). Significant F values were followed by the Fisher Least Significant Difference Test to determine the domains or elements that significantly differ from one another. Significant differences in the importance ratings were obtained across each of the 4 domains. The instruction domain was rated most important followed by classroom environment, planning and preparation, and professional responsibilities. Findings may facilitate positive social change by enabling schools, districts, and states to more accurately evaluate teachers and devote limited professional development resources to domains and elements with the greatest potential for improving teacher quality.

Online learning offers a convenient and popular choice for those needing courses to accommodate busy schedules. These include busy professionals, students with limited or no access to physical training facilities, businesses with diverse and global workforces, and students studying on campus. Online learning has experienced steady growth in both the academia and business worlds in recent years. Despite this steady adoption rate, however, there is a gap in the literature for empirical research to determine common factors of successful online courses. The Framework for Interaction and Cognitive Engagement in Connectivist Learning Contexts (FICECLC) Theory, a modern online-learning theoretical framework, states that the purpose of an online course is to transfer knowledge to the learner via his/her interaction with other learners, the course, and the instructor. This mixed-method study investigated online student course success with respect to student interaction by validating the FICECLC Theory framework by examining the correlation between student social interactions and progress for an online course built on the basis of the FICECLC Theory and an online course not built on the basis of the FICECLC Theory. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson’s Correlation found no statistically-significant difference between the levels of student interaction, correlation of student interactions to success, and student performance levels between the students from the online course built on the basis of the FICECLC Theory and the students from the online course not built on the basis of the FICECLC Theory. Themes from semi-structured interviews found that social interaction in an online course is not a precondition for course success, but an interactive course content and instructor support, when oriented to promoting application based course exercises, are. The interaction between the student, content, and instructor can lead to deep learning if the interactions among them are multi-directional and centered on content-based exercises.

Process-based approaches to writing tend to overlook the self-regulatory skills and motivational beliefs required for proficient writing (Harris, Santangelo, & Graham, 2008) and do not provide the support many students need to develop into effective writers (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006). Additionally, restricted writing opportunities preclude the sustained deliberate practice students need to develop expertise in writing (Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009). This study examined an intervention that incorporated the self-regulated strategy development model (SRSD, Graham & Harris, 1993) with the automated writing evaluation (AWE) program NC Write. An embedded quasi-experimental mixed methods design was used to determine the impact of the intervention on students’ argumentative writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy. Middle school students (N=829) participated in one of three conditions: NC Write + traditional writing instruction, NC Write + SRSD instruction, or a comparison condition.

Results of multi-level models that controlled for pretest performance and predicted posttest performance averaging across students and within teachers showed that students in the NC Write + SRSD instruction condition produced posttest essays that were of a higher quality, longer, and included more basic elements of argumentative essays than students in the other two conditions. Students in the NC Write + traditional writing instruction condition produced higher-quality essays than students in the comparison condition at posttest. Students in the NC Write + SRSD instruction condition identified more essay elements at posttest, though there were no between-condition differences in writing knowledge of substantive processes or in students’ writing self-efficacy at posttest.

Additional multi-level models were specified to include all essays written by treatment condition students and examine the shape of growth in writing performance. Results showed that students’ growth in writing quality, essay length, and essay elements was best represented by a quadratic growth model. On average, students’ growth in writing performance reached a plateau following the fourth essay written during the intervention. Differences in rates of change and deceleration in writing quality, essay length, and essay elements were not significantly different between the two treatment conditions.

Survey results showed students and teachers held generally favorable opinions of NC Write. Interview results determined that NC Write as well as the overall writing intervention had acceptable social validity. Qualitative data analysis revealed that NC Write provided a framework for deliberate writing practice. In this framework students’ growth in writing performance is supported by a cycle of learning, practice, and feedback. NC Write enabled deliberate practice by affording writing quality feedback, efficiency, and evidence of growth, and supporting teachers’ writing instruction and students’ intrinsic motivation. Limitations of the framework included some aspects of feedback, limited lesson data, and lack of a plagiarism scanner in NC Write. Implications from these findings support integrating SRSD instruction with an AWE program to support teacher implementation of the SRSD model and more efficiently provide students with the strategy instruction, practice opportunities, and feedback needed to develop proficiency in writing. Recommendations are provided for AWE programs to better support students’ maintenance of writing quality growth.