A.General description on research questions, objectives, and theoretical framework.Research suggests that teachers and parents might be better equipped to tackle school bullying when they collaborate (Axford et al., 2015; Gaffney et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2019). Despite the various efforts to secure family-school partnerships, parents’ involvement in schools’ antibullying interventions remains limited (Gaffney et al., 2021).Motivated to improve their family-school anti-bullying collaboration, three Dutch primary school communities took part in a participatory action research (Brydon‐Miller & Maguire, 2009) project. From 2019-2021, educational professionals and parents worked together supported by researchers, to pinpoint areas for improvement, and develop targeted solutions for their schools. The applied approach was similar to ‘action teams for partnership’ (Epstein, 2018), which has been argued to increase parent engagement to attain schools’ development goals. In this study, we evaluated the project with participating parents, educational professionals, and researchers, to discover how they reflect on the process and its outcomes. Our aim was to find out whether (and how) the participatory action research approach helped school communities to work towards family-school partnership to tackle bullying. B.Methods/methodologySemi-structured interviews were conducted with participating parents (n=3/5), educational professionals (n=7/10) and researchers (n=3/3), through video calls which were recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was conducted to gain insight in participants’ experiences in the collaborative process of conducting research and designing solutions, and the perceived outcomes for themselves and their school.C.Expected outcome/resultsIn this contribution, we critically reflect on our participatory action research approach, aiming to offer some guidance to community members and researchers looking to conduct similar studies. Overall, participants valued the collaborative process, and mentioned beneficial outcomes for themselves and/or their schools. Evaluations of the developed solutions, however, were mixed. Participants’ experiences were mainly related to alignment of interests and goals, group and community building, and exchange and coordination, as well as school- and contextual factors. While securing long lasting change remains challenging, participatory action research seems to be a fruitful approach to work towards family-school partnership.D.ReferencesAxford, N., Farrington, D. P., Clarkson, S., Bjornstad, G. J., Wrigley, Z., & Hutchings, J. (2015). Involving parents in school-based programmes to prevent and reduce bullying: What effect does it have? Journal of Children’s Services, 10(3), 242–251. https://doi.org/10/gk4fqzBrydon‐Miller, M., & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10/dqbbn3Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 37–56. https://doi.org/10/gh24fpHuang, Y., Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Hong, J. S. (2019). A Meta-analytic Review of School-Based Anti-bullying Programs with a Parent Component. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(1). https://doi.org/10/gjhzqj
The closing of schools and sports clubs during theCOVID-19 lockdown raised questions about thepossible impact on children’s motor skilldevelopment. Therefore we compared motorcompetence development over a one-year periodamong four different cohorts of primary schoolchildren. A total of 992 children from 9 primaryschools participated in this study (age 5 – 7; 47,5%boys) and were assessed two times, in grade 3 (T1)and in grade 4 (T2). Children in control group 1 and lockdown group 1 were assessed a third time aftertwo years (T3). Motor competence was measuredusing the 4-Skills Test. The mixed factorial ANOVAwith post hoc tests shows no significant differencesin motor development over the study period betweenthe lockdown groups and control groups (p > 0.05),but does show a difference between the twolockdown groups from T1 to T2 (p = 0.008). Whilesocioeconomic status (SES) was a modifier, sex andmotor ability did not modify the effects of thelockdowns. Our data show that the COVID-19lockdowns in the Netherlands did not generallyaffect motor development of young children. Incontrast, many studies have confirmed clear effectsof the pandemic lockdowns on physicalactivity1,2,3. Our study highlights the complexity ofboth motor skill development and the factors relatedto the pandemic lockdowns. We therefore suggestthat children’s motor skill development should beclosely monitored in the upcoming years.Specifically, we should pay attention to individualdifferences since it is still possible that certainchildren are impacted by the pandemic lockdowns.Moreover, long-term effects might emerge in thefuture.References1. de Sá, C. dos S. C., Pombo, A., Luz, C.,Rodrigues, L. P., & Cordovil, R. (2021). Covid-19social isolation in brazil: effects on the physicalactivity routine of families with children. RevistaPaulista de Pediatria, 39, e2020159.2. Hurter, L., McNarry, M., Stratton, G., &Mackintosh, K. (2022). Back to school afterlockdown: The effect of COVID-19 restrictions onchildren’s device-based physical activity metrics.Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(4), 530–536.3. Moore, S. A., Faulkner, G., Rhodes, R. E.,Brussoni, M., Chulak-Bozzer, T., Ferguson, L. J.,Mitra, R., O’Reilly, N., Spence, J. C., Vanderloo, L.M., & Tremblay, M. S. (2020). Impact of theCOVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and playbehaviours of Canadian children and youth: Anational survey. International Journal of BehavioralNutrition and Physical Activity, 17(1), 85.
Over the past decades, journalism schools and journalism training programmes have been trying to keep up with the constant technological and societal developments. Numerous studies have been done about what knowledge and skills should be taught and several on how they should be taught, to be more adaptive to this changing environment and media landscape. Meanwhile, also media companies are increasingly becoming educators, with their own learning academies to make journalists become lifelong learners. In this study, which was conducted in the Netherlands, we take a holistic approach to understanding the uncertain future journalism education is currently dealing with. We use the method of scenario planning to systematically analyse the current debate on journalism education. By collecting opinions and views of fifty different experts from the broad field of journalism and (journalism) education, we deducted certain and uncertain trends that led to two axes, answering the following questions: What type of journalism do we educate for and Who is in charge of the learning process? Crossing these axes, four scenarios for the future of journalism education appear. With this study, we intend to facilitate the debate on the future of journalism education.
LINK
