偏离目标:评价性格与教师准备中的白的具体化

IF 1.8 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1080/00131946.2023.2248637
Regina J. Giraldo-García, Eva Zygmunt, Kristin N. Cipollone, Sheron Fraser-Burgess, Michael Takafor Ndemanu, John Ambrosio
{"title":"偏离目标:评价性格与教师准备中的白的具体化","authors":"Regina J. Giraldo-García, Eva Zygmunt, Kristin N. Cipollone, Sheron Fraser-Burgess, Michael Takafor Ndemanu, John Ambrosio","doi":"10.1080/00131946.2023.2248637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In order to explore whether the WatermarkTM Educator Disposition Assessment (EDA) is an equitable assessment for all teacher candidates regardless of race, this study used a Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) methodological design to analyze a pilot implementation of the assessment representing 650 discreet disposition assessments undertaken in 24 designated courses in five distinct programs of educator preparation at a midsized Midwestern university. Chi-square analysis and descriptive statistics from fall 2019–spring 2020 archival data indicate a statistically significant association between the variable race and the average scores assigned to students in multiple EDA assessments, with marked disadvantages for Black teacher candidates. Through this analysis and a careful and critical review of language embedded in each rubric row, the authors argue that the WatermarkTM EDA advances and reifies a set of normative practices that align with dominant White, middle-class cultural values under the guise of objectivity.","PeriodicalId":47443,"journal":{"name":"Educational Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Missing the Mark: Assessing Dispositions and the Reification of Whiteness in Teacher Preparation\",\"authors\":\"Regina J. Giraldo-García, Eva Zygmunt, Kristin N. Cipollone, Sheron Fraser-Burgess, Michael Takafor Ndemanu, John Ambrosio\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00131946.2023.2248637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In order to explore whether the WatermarkTM Educator Disposition Assessment (EDA) is an equitable assessment for all teacher candidates regardless of race, this study used a Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) methodological design to analyze a pilot implementation of the assessment representing 650 discreet disposition assessments undertaken in 24 designated courses in five distinct programs of educator preparation at a midsized Midwestern university. Chi-square analysis and descriptive statistics from fall 2019–spring 2020 archival data indicate a statistically significant association between the variable race and the average scores assigned to students in multiple EDA assessments, with marked disadvantages for Black teacher candidates. Through this analysis and a careful and critical review of language embedded in each rubric row, the authors argue that the WatermarkTM EDA advances and reifies a set of normative practices that align with dominant White, middle-class cultural values under the guise of objectivity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2023.2248637\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2023.2248637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了探讨WatermarkTM教育倾向评估(EDA)是否对所有教师候选人都是公平的评估,无论种族如何,本研究采用定量批判种族理论(QuantCrit)方法设计来分析该评估的试点实施情况,该评估代表了在中西部一所中型大学五个不同教育准备项目的24个指定课程中进行的650项审慎倾向评估。卡方分析和2019年秋季至2020年春季档案数据的描述性统计表明,可变种族与多次EDA评估中分配给学生的平均分数之间存在统计学显著关联,黑人教师候选人明显处于劣势。通过这种分析和对每个标题行中嵌入的语言的仔细而批判性的回顾,作者认为WatermarkTM EDA在客观性的伪装下推进并具体化了一套与占主导地位的白人中产阶级文化价值观相一致的规范实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Missing the Mark: Assessing Dispositions and the Reification of Whiteness in Teacher Preparation
In order to explore whether the WatermarkTM Educator Disposition Assessment (EDA) is an equitable assessment for all teacher candidates regardless of race, this study used a Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) methodological design to analyze a pilot implementation of the assessment representing 650 discreet disposition assessments undertaken in 24 designated courses in five distinct programs of educator preparation at a midsized Midwestern university. Chi-square analysis and descriptive statistics from fall 2019–spring 2020 archival data indicate a statistically significant association between the variable race and the average scores assigned to students in multiple EDA assessments, with marked disadvantages for Black teacher candidates. Through this analysis and a careful and critical review of language embedded in each rubric row, the authors argue that the WatermarkTM EDA advances and reifies a set of normative practices that align with dominant White, middle-class cultural values under the guise of objectivity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Studies
Educational Studies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Educational Studies aims to provide a forum for original investigations and theoretical studies in education. The journal publishes fully refereed papers which cover applied and theoretical approaches to the study of education. Papers should constitute original research, and should be methodologically sound, theoretically informed, and of relevance to an international audience. The journal is particularly interested in research that aims to inform educational practice(s) within and/or across sectors. Whilst the journal is principally concerned with the social sciences, contributions from a wider field are also encouraged. Empirically-based papers are particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
Conceptualisation and empirical verification of the affective role of the teacher Transgender Solidarity and Gender Out of Place The nexus between research methodology, classroom data and instructional policy: insights from enacting the Zimbabwe curriculum framework 2015–2022 reforms Why We Need a Long View of Abolition to End the School-to-Prison Pipeline A meta-analytical investigation on the relationship between emotional labour and teacher efficacy in the Chinese context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1