Taking issue with how the Work-integrated Learning discourse ascribes a dualistic meaning to graduate employability

Work-integrated Learning (WIL) is renowned for providing a bridge between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ that fosters ‘employable graduates’. This study critically argues that the WIL discourse continues to ascribe a dualistic meaning to graduate employability that primarily contributes to creating the so-called theory–practice gap for students. As an argument towards such a conclusion, a genealogical discourse analysis of how the graduate employability idea operates in 87 present and past official documents concerning the Cooperative Education (Co-op) WIL model is used. Two accounts of graduate employability, the antagonistic practice acclaiming account and the harmonious theory and practice account, recur in both the present and past documents. Both accounts contribute to creating the gap, while the latter also contributes to bridging it. The non-dualistic account, which involves knowing that the key to becoming employable is understanding how both research-based and informal theory shape daily occupational work, could be a useful alternative to these accounts. This is because it could encourage students to see how theory is a form of knowledge manifested in, rather than disconnected from, this work. However, the usual WIL design, whereby universities and workplaces outside universities are respectively institutionalised as the places where ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ is learnt, is not so much instrumental in spreading this non-dualistic account, but rather implies to students that ‘theory’ is absent from daily work until they apply it. Thus, I discuss how establishing physical and/or virtual countersites to the usual WIL design could potentially spread this account to students.

A study on family-school cooperation based on an analysis of school documentation

Family-school cooperation is a very complex process that can be studied at different levels in a number of different ways. This study has covered only some aspects of cooperation between parents and teachers, based on school documentation of a Belgrade elementary school. The study covered analyses of 60 Attendance Registers pertaining to 60 classes with 1289 students from Grade 1 through Grade 8 during an academic year. The unit of analysis included: parents attendance at PTA meetings and individual meetings between parents and teachers. In addition to the frequency of parents? visits to school, the relationship between such registered parents' visits and overall academic performance, grades in conduct, excused and unexcused absence from classes were also considered. The research findings indicated interference between development factors (attitude change in parent-child relationship and growing-up) and parents? informal "theory of critical grades" i.e. transitional processes in schooling. The findings confirmed that parents? individual visits to school were mainly meant to offer an excuse for the student?s absence from school, while attendance at PTA meetings was linked to poor grades in conduct and missed classes (both excused and unexcused). The findings also showed that parents pursued visiting strategies which were pragmatic, less time-consuming and less emotionally draining ones. The closing part refers to discussions on practical use of the study and possible further research. .

A Model of Muddling Through

As arguments about the effectiveness of “muddling through” have proven frustratingly inconclusive, incrementalism—once a major approach to the study of boundedly rational policy processes—has gone dormant. In an attempt to revitalize the debate, I present a formal model of muddling through. The model, by clarifying the logical structure of the informal theory, presents a clearer target for criticism. More importantly, it establishes numerous deductive results. First, some of Lindblom's less controversial conjectures—about the benefits of seriality (repeated attacks on the same policy problem) and redundancy (multiple decision makers working on the same problem)—turn out to be correct if conflict across policy domains is absent or takes certain specified forms. But given other empirically reasonable types of conflict, even these claims are wrong. Second, the advantages of incremental (local) policy search (Lindblom's best-known and most controversial claim) turn out to be still less well founded: in many empirically plausible contexts the claim is invalid.