Understanding the nature of accountability failure in a technology-filled, laissez-faire classroom: Disaffected students and teachers who give in

Journal of Curriculum Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 459-481

  Elstad, Eyvind ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Accountability; Computer uses in education; Curriculum in Norway; Discipline problems; Teacher student relationship

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749995018     PISSN: 00220272     EISSN: 13665839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220270500508901     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Adams, R. S. (1969) Location as a feature of instructional interaction Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15((4)), pp. 309-321.
2. Ainslie, G. and Haendel, V.(1983) The motives of the will. In Etiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. (pp. 119-140). Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.
3. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004) Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory, 54((3)), pp. 233-250.
4. Charlton, B. G.(2002) Audit, accountability, quality and all that: The growth of managerial technologies in UK universities. In Education! Education! Education!: Managerial Ethics and the Law of Unintended Consequences. (pp. 13-28). Thorverton: Imprint Academic in conjunction with the Higher Educational Foundation.
5. Chung, S. H. and Herrnstein, R. J. (1967) Choice and delay of reinforcement Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10((1)), pp. 67-74.
6. Cusick, P. A.(1973) Inside High School: The Student's World. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7. Dale, E. L. and Waerness, J. I.(2003) Differensiering og tilpasning i grunnopplæringen [Differentiation and adjustment in education]. Oslo: Cappelen.
8. Bloome, D. (1989) Procedural display and classroom lessons Curriculum Inquiry, 19((3)), pp. 265-291.
9. Charlton, B. G. (1999) The ideology of 'accountability' Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 33((1)), pp. 33-35.
10. DeBray, E. and Parson, G. and Woodworth, K.(2001) Patterns of response in four high schools under state accountability policies in Vermont and New York. In From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in the States, 100th Yearbook, Part 2, of the National Society for the Study of Education. (pp. 170-192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Deci, E. L.(1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
12. Denscombe, M.(1986) Classroom Control: A Sociological Perspective. London: Allen & Unwin.
13. Doyle, W. (1983) Academic work Review of Educational Research, 53((2)), pp. 159-199.
14. Doyle, W. (1984) How order is achieved in classrooms: An interim report Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16((3)), pp. 259-277.
15. Doyle, W.(1986) Classroom organization and management. In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn. (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
16. Doyle, W.(1992) Curriculum and pedagogy. In Handbook of Research on Curriculum. (pp. 486-516). New York: Macmillan.
17. Eccles, J. and Midgley, C. and Adler, T. F.(1984) Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In The Development of Achievement Motivation. (pp. 282-331). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
18. Eccles, J. S. and Midgley, C. and Wigfield, A. and Buchanan, C. M. and Reuman, D. and Flanagan, C. and Iver, D. M. (1993) Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families American Psychologist, 48((2)), pp. 90-101.
19. Elmore, R. F.(2003) Agency, Reciprocity, and Accountability in Democratic Education. Philadelphia PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
20. Elstad, E. (2002) Toward a model of strategic actions in the classroom: game theory as heuristic of research Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46((1)), pp. 65-81.
21. Elstad, E.(2005). Entanglements between teacher student interaction and teacher management interaction: Two-level games as heuristic of research. Paper presented at 33rd Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo NorwayMarch10-12. In [pp.].
22. Elstad, E.The relevance of rhetoric to the study of power in communication and communicative adequacy International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning.
23. Elster, J.(1983) Explaining Technical Change: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Erstad, O. and Frolich, T. H. and Klovstad, V. and Vestby, G. M.(2000) Den langsomme eksplosjonen [The slow explosion]. The Network for IT-Research and Competence in Education, University of Oslo. Report
25. Frolich, T. H. and Vestby, G. M.(2003) Ingen vei tilbake ([No way backward]. The Network for IT-Research and Competence in Education, University of Oslo. Report
26. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J.(1991) Game Theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
27. Fuglestad, O. L.(1993) Samspel og motspel [Co-games and Counter-games]. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
28. Goodlad, J. I. and Ammons, M. and Griffin, G. A. and Hill, H. W. and Iwanska, A. and Jordan, J. A. and Klein, M. F. and McClure, R. N. and Richter, M. N., Jr and Tye, K. A. and Tyler, L. L. and Wilson, E. C.(1979) Curriculum Inquiry: The Study of Curriculum Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. Harter, S. (1981) A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components Developmental Psychology, 17((3)), pp. 300-312.
30. Jedeskog, G. and Nissen, J. (2004) ICT in the classroom: Is doing more important than knowing? Education and Information Technologies, 9((1)), pp. 37-45.
31. Jersild, A. T. (1940) Characteristics of teachers who are 'liked best' and 'disliked most' Journal of Experimental Education, 9((2)), pp. 139-151.
32. Johannesen, T. A. and Harkin, J. and Mikalsen, Ø. (2002) Constructs used by 17-19 year old students in Northern Europe when informally evaluating their teachers European Educational Research Journal, 1((3)), pp. 538-549.
33. Johnson, N. B.(1985) Westhaven: Classroom Culture and Society in a Rural Elementary School. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina Press.
34. Klafki, W.(1975 [1963]) Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Weinheim: J. Beltz.
35. Kluge, L. (2001) Barbar PC ga god orden [Portable PC-induced order] Aftenposten, pp. 22.
36. Kvale, S.(1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage.
37. Lie, S. and Kjaernslie, M. and Roe, A. and Turmo, A.(2001) Godt rustet for framtida? [Well equipped for the future?]. Institute of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo. Report no. 4
38. Pritchard, A. and Cartwright, V. (2004) Transforming what they read: helping eleven-year-olds engage with internet information Literacy, 38((1)), pp. 26-31.
39. Rapoport, A.(1959) Uses and limitations of mathematical models in social sciences. In Stochastic Modeling of Social Processes. (pp. 7-38). Orlando FL: Academic Press.
40. Rossow, I. (2003) Ungdommen nå til dags [The youth nowadays] Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning, 1((3)), pp. 89-97.
41. Selten, R. (1975) Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games International Journal of Game Theory, 4((1-2)), pp. 25-55.
42. Sfard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one Educational Researcher, 27((2)), pp. 4-13.
43. Shepard, L. A. (1990) Inflated test score gains: Is the problem old norms or teaching to the test? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9((3)), pp. 15-22.
44. Johannesen, T. A. and Grønhaug, K. and Risholm, N. G. and Mikalsen, Ø. (1997) What is important to students? Exploring dimensions in their evaluations of teachers Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 41((2)), pp. 165-177.
45. Dean, J. P. and Whyte, W. F.(1969) How do you know if the informant is telling the truth?. In Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and a Reader. (pp. 105-115). London: Addison-Wesley.
46. Weinstein, C. S. (1979) The physical environment of the school: A review of the research Review of Educational Research, 49((4)), pp. 557-610.
47. Westbury, I. (1973) Conventional classrooms, 'open' classrooms and the technology of teaching Journal of Curriculum Studies, 5((2)), pp. 99-121.
48. Shepard, L. A. (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture Educational Researcher, 29((7)), pp. 4-14.
49. Simmons, R. G. and Blyth, D.A.(1987) Moving into Adolescence: The Impact of Pubertal Change and School Context. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
50. Sinclair, A. (1995) The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20((2-3)), pp. 219-237.
51. Solnick, J. V. and Kannenberg, C. H. and Eckerman, D. A. and Waller, M. B. (1980) An experimental analysis of impulsivity and impulse control in humans Learning and Motivation, 11((1)), pp. 61-77.
52. Stecher, B. M. and Hamilton, L. S. (2002) Putting theory to the test: systems of 'educational accountability' should be held accountable Rand Review, 26((1)), pp. 16-23. Available online at: http://www.rand.org/ publications/randreview/issues/rr.04.02/theory.html, accessed 20 November 2004
53. Linn, R. L. (2003) Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations Educational Researcher, 32((7)), pp. 3-13. Available online at: http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=399/, accessed 23 May 2005
54. Popper, K. R.(1976) The logic of the social sciences. In The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. (pp. 87-104). London: Heinemann. trans. G. Adey and D. Frisby
55. Nordahl, T.(2000) En skole - to verdener [One school - two worlds]. University of Oslo. Doctoral dissertation
56. O'Day, J. A. (2002) Complexity, accountability, and school improvement Harvard Educational Review, 72((3)), pp. 293-329.
57. McLaughlin, M. W. and Talbert, L. A.(2001) Professional Communities and the Work of High School Teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58. Monsen, L.(1997) Ansvar for egen læring - fra slagord til klasserom [Responsibility for own learning - from slogan to classroom]. In Idealer og paradokser [Ideals and paradoxes]. (pp. 57-72). Oslo: Tano.
59. Naeslund, L.(2001) Att organisera pedagogisk frihet [Organizing pedagogical freedom]. University of Linkoping. Report