Advertisement

Soft Infusion: Constructing ‘Teachers’ in the PISA Sphere

  • Christina Elde MølstadEmail author
  • Daniel Pettersson
  • Tine S. Prøitz
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)

Abstract

Since their inception, international large-scale assessments introduced by the OECD, such as PISA, have been widely discussed and disseminated in various social fields, e.g. policy, research, practice and the media. Administrative and political actors have responded to PISA and taken part in discussions about the results (e.g. Pettersson in Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan. Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2008; Hopmann in European Educational Research Journal 6:109–124, 2007, 2015; Ozga in Fabricating quality in education: data and governance in Europe. Routledge, New York, 2011; Ertl in Oxford Review of Education 32:619–634, 2006; Grek in Journal of Education Policy 24:23–37, 2009).

References

  1. Carvalho, L. M. (2012). The fabrication and travel of a knowledge-policy instrument. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eisner, E. W. (1996). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ertl, H. (2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2013). Remaking the professional teacher: Authority and curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 634–655.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.854410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., et al. (2009). National policy brokering and the construction of the European Education Space in England, Sweden, Finland and Scotland. Comparative Education, 45(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hacking, I. (1992). ‘Style’ of historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 23(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, H. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.  https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2015). International comparisons of school results—A systematic review of research on large scale assessment in education. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Research Council.Google Scholar
  12. Labaree, D. F. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 228–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2001). Conceptualising global relations at the glonacal levels. Paper presented at the annual international forum of the conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA.Google Scholar
  14. Martens, K. (2007). How to become an influential actor—The “comparative turn” in OECD education policy. In K. Martens, A. Rusconi, & K. Lutz (Eds.), Transformations of the state and global governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Mølstad, C. E. (2015). State-based curriculum-making: Approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 441–461.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1039067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nóvoa, A., & Lord, M. (Eds.). (2002). Fabricating europe: The formation of an education space. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Ozga, Jenny, et al. (Eds.). (2011). Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in Europe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Pettersson, D. (2008). Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan (Ph.D.). Uppsala University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  19. Pettersson, D., & Mølstad, C. E. (2016). PISA teachers: The hope and the happening of educational development. Educação & Sociedade, 37(136), 629–645.  https://doi.org/10.1590/ES0101-73302016165509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pettersson, D., Popkewitz, T. S., & Lindblad, S. (2016). On the use of educational numbers: Comparative constructions of hierarchies by means of large-scale assessments. Espacio, Tiempo y Education, 3(1), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Priestley, M., Robertson, S., & Biesta, G. (2012). Teacher agency, performativity and curriculum change: Reinventing the teacher in the Scottish curriculum for excellence. In B. Jeffrey & G. Troman (Eds.), Performativity across UK educaiton: Ethographic cases of its effects, agency and reconstructions (pp. 87–108). Painswick: E&E Publisher.Google Scholar
  22. Prøitz, T. S. (2015). Uploading, downloading and uploading again—Concepts for policy integration in education research. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy (NordSTEP), 1(1), 70–80.  https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rouvroy, A. (2012). The end(s) of critique: Data-behaviourism vs. due-process. In M. Hildebrandt & E. De Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn. Philosophers of law meet philosophers of technology. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Scholl, D. (2012). Are the traditional curricula dispensable? A feature pattern to compare different types of curriculum and a critical view of educational standards and essential curricula in Germany. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 328–341.  https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York & London: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Educational Science Publishing House 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Elde Mølstad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Pettersson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tine S. Prøitz
    • 4
  1. 1.Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences—INN UniversityElverumNorway
  2. 2.University of GävleGävleSweden
  3. 3.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.University College of Southeast NorwayNottodenNorway

Personalised recommendations