One of the best-known criticisms of traditional education systems concerns their deterministic impact on the social trajectory of learners, which maintains and reinforces social inequality. However, previous analysis (Tchibozo, 2004) has shown that the effect of schools on learners' education-to-work transitions can be not only deterministic, but also random or chaotic. A new tool, the AGIC Calculator, has recently been developed to enable educators, guidance counsellors, policy makers and researchers to specify in a practical way the dynamics of learners' school-to-work transitions and to analyse more precisely social reproduction, and more generally to precisely analyse the dynamics of any type of social trajectory. This note outlines the main points of the problem and the value of the AGIC calculator for guidance counselling, education policy and research in this field. /// Une critique bien etablie a l'encontre des systèmes éducatifs traditionnels concerne leur impact déterministe sur la trajectoire sociale des apprenants, qui maintient et renforce l'inégalité sociale. Cependant, des analyses antérieures (Tchibozo, 2004) ont montré que l'effet des écoles sur les transitions éducation-travail des apprenants peut être non seulement déterministe, mais aussi aléatoire ou chaotique. Un nouvel outil, le Calculateur AGIC, a été récemment développé pour permettre aux éducateurs, aux conseillers d'orientation, aux décideurs politiques et aux chercheurs de spécifier de manière pratique la dynamique des transitions école-travail des apprenants, d'analyser plus précisément la reproduction sociale, et plus généralement d'analyser précisément la dynamique de tout type de trajectoire sociale. Cette note souligne l'interet du calculateur AGIC pour le conseil en orientation, la politique éducative, et la recherche dans ces domaines.

Recent research points to the significant role that Psychological Capital (PsyCap) plays in predicting teacher wellbeing (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and in preventing burnout (Chang, 2009; Dussault & Deaudelin, 1999; Fullan, 2001; Hakanen et al., 2006; Maslach et al., 2001). PsyCap, the complex and malleable, "state-like" constructs of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, is influential in increasing motivation in work and educational settings. Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) (Goddard et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2014; Sandoval et al., 2011) has also been found to positively impact teacher’s experiences through the enhancement of persistence, job satisfaction and professional commitment, expectations for students and effective implementation of change. What is not evident is how these two constructs interact, and to what extent they inform teacher wellbeing. Intriguingly, the implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) could serve as a crucial interface between PsyCap and CTE, facilitating a symbiotic relationship that magnifies their individual impacts on teacher wellbeing. PLCs not only provide a structured environment for collective problem-solving and shared expertise (Stoll et al., 2006), but also cultivate a sense of community that could potentially elevate these psychological constructs. This study investigates the literature to consider the potential relationship between PsyCap and CTE and the implications for supporting teacher wellbeing within the implementation of a Community of Practice (CoP) approach to professional learning. A Systematic Qualitative Literature Review (SQLR) methodology (Pickering & Byrne, 2013) explores the intersections of psychological capital, collective teacher efficacy, and teacher wellbeing in the context of PLCs. The SQLR methodology applies specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 26 studies identified for review. The analysis identified connectedness between the PsyCap components of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism with teacher wellbeing, in particular to elements shown to mitigate teacher burnout, and which can be considered indicators in the assessment of wellness. The CTE and CoP literature highlights the importance of shared vision, structured collaboration, regular reflection, supportive leadership, celebration of successes, and fostering trust, as factors that facilitate positive teacher experiences within the processes of professional learning and navigating change. This analysis offers insights into how PsyCap and CTE may interact with and inform teacher wellbeing in the PLC professional learning context.

This review of the literature examines research reports on learning to teach with technology between 2013 and 2019 to illuminate the characteristics of the field at multiple levels of granularity and to call attention to what is missing. We ask the question: What does the overarching paradigm of the field of research on learning to teach with technology look like? Using a mixed paradigmatic and data science-based analysis that involved qualitatively coding the methodologies, purposes, and approaches in the manuscripts and applying a hierarchical clustering of principal components algorithm, five clusters emerged on a two-dimensional axis that centered on exploring the teacher pipeline versus social and individual experiences on one axis and behaviors and practices versus attitudes and beliefs on the other. The field was found to be tightly centralized, and clusters overlapped and intersected with methods and outcomes bundled together in a milieu buffeted by neoliberal logics and a sense of techno-utopianism to largely support default theories around technology as a “fix” and as an end in itself to build the teacher workforce. This review finds several critical areas underrepresented, such as time- and context-bound ethnographic studies, approaches that center on anti-oppressive critical media literacy, understanding the ways technology can bridge the classroom with families and communities, and learning to teach with technology for equity and inclusion to support the sustainability and development of identities, communities, and a more democratic society.

As a team of diverse researchers, we sought a method to write a substantive literature review that could influence policy on integrated/interdisciplinary curriculum (IC). Simultaneously we engaged in action research during this process to improve as researchers. In two attempts to conduct a rigorous systematic literature review, we encountered numerous obstacles: multiple and amorphous definitions; dependency on authors’ keyword choices; the challenge of consistent application of inclusion criteria; our reluctance to include overlapping studies and to exclude respected qualitative studies; determining if the studies reflected true curriculum integration; and finally, measurement and validity issues. We concluded that systematic reviews may not be as surgical as we had hoped, but instead, can be messy and limiting. Our struggles serve as cautions for researchers investigating interdisciplinary topics such as IC. We offer our process and lessons learned for consideration: loosening inclusion criteria boundaries, ‘slow thinking’, and a prismatic approach to reviewing literature.

The article positions mixed-method research (MMR) as a principled complementary research method to the traditional quantitative and qualitative research approaches. By situating MMR in an analysis of some of the common research paradigms, the article presents it as a natural choice in order to complement and cater to the increasingly complex needs of contemporary researchers. It proffers MMR as a flexible and adaptive conceptual framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research in a simplified manner. By explaining fundamental principles and major theoretical tenets of a mixed-methods approach, which involves both quantitative and qualitative data collection in response to research questions, it elucidates several benefits of adopting MMR since it integrates post-positivism as well as interpretivism frameworks. There is abundant literature around this research design aiming to provide researchers an understanding of the approach. Yet there is limited literature that provides illustrative guidance to research novices in comprehending mixed methods, understanding reasons for choosing it, and selecting an appropriate mixed methods design. Based on an analysis of some notable works in the field, this article provides an overview of mixed methods designs, discusses its main types, and explains challenges one can potentially encounter when in using them with a view to assisting early career researchers in particular and other researchers in general.

Cet ouvrage est un compagnon de route de l’éducationniste dans l’exploration, la maîtrise progressive et l’usage des méthodes quantitatives pour l’analyse et la recherche en éducation et formation. Il est conçu de façon à accompagner l’utilisateur, des premiers stades de la formation jusqu’à l’autonomie. À cette fin, l’étendue du contenu présenté est des plus larges, allant des notions de base de statistique descriptive jusqu’à des méthodes avancées comme les modèles d’équations structurelles. S’adressant à un public non-familier des méthodes quantitatives, l’ouvrage privilégie une approche pratique, l’utilisation de logiciels statistiques, et des exemples illustrant les règles de procédure et d’interprétation.