Educational researchers and policy-makers are now expected by funding agencies and their institutions to innovate the multidirectional ways in which our production of knowledge can impact the classrooms of teachers (practitioners), while also integrating their experiential knowledge into the landscape of our research. In this article, we draw on the curriculum implementation literature to complicate our understandings of knowledge mobilization (KMb). Policy implementation, we suggest, can be understood as one specific type of KMb. We draw on different models for KMb and curriculum implementation and develop a relational model for KMb. Utilizing our model we critically reflect on the specific successes and challenges encountered while establishing, building, and sustaining the capacity of our KMb network. Our findings suggest that faculties of education are uniquely positioned to act as secondary brokers for the implementation of policy reforms within public education systems. To this end, we discuss how a relational KMb network is a “best practice” for establishing and sustaining partnerships among policy makers, educational researchers, and public school practitioners.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We provide a response to Michiel van Eijck and Wolff-Michael Roth's article and Michael Mueller and Deborah Tippins' rejoinder. As we adhere to the conversation, we hope to bring new insights on the matter of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and/in science education. As the title suggests, we divided the present commentary in two distinct but interconnected sections. The first section (Giuliano) deals with the limitations imposed by language in dealing with a possible amalgamation of TEK into the traditional school science curriculum and the threat that such a move would represent to the value of keeping them distinct from one another. The second section (Nicholas) touches on the unseen (or ignored?) perils of neglecting indigenous voices in the debate-which, in itself, corresponds to yet another limiting factor inherent to this forum. Also, the second section reports on a professional experience with B.Ed. students that speaks to the practical implications of the current discussion. Combined, the two sections seek to uncover the potential significance of the TEK-WMS discussion to different education actors beyond the non-aboriginal scholarly world.