In considering how to better support teacher and school leader careers, the ET2020 Working Group on Schools has redressed the balance by understanding better the lived experience of individual teachers and school leaders. The starting point was to focus on what teachers may want from their careers as they enter the school education profession, and how these ambitions may change as their career is sustained.Importantly for policy makers, the Group has considered how support mechanisms can benefit these individuals and, at the same time, benefit schools and the wider system in a coherent manner.It is hoped that education systems, by virtue of their policy makers, can engage and support stakeholders to take a new approach to teacher and school leader careers: one that genuinely nurtures individual motivation and abilities (competence), whilst providing a range of opportunities in which all teachers and school leaders can grow and progress.There are two core ideas explored in this Guide: the need to recognise and support diverse career paths; and the need to take a coherent approach to that support.
The central aim of this thesis was to increase understanding of designing vocational learning environments at the school–work boundary. Four studies were conducted, focusing on learning environment designs at the school–work boundary and on design considerations of the actors involved in their construction, both from the world of school and the world of work.
Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity.
MULTIFILE
