学会正直地思考、执行和行动:教师教育有标志性的教育法吗?为什么这很重要?

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH London Review of Education Pub Date : 2023-01-04 DOI:10.14324/lre.21.1.01
C. Brooks, J. McIntyre, T. Mutton
{"title":"学会正直地思考、执行和行动:教师教育有标志性的教育法吗?为什么这很重要?","authors":"C. Brooks, J. McIntyre, T. Mutton","doi":"10.14324/lre.21.1.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unprecedented reform to teacher education in England, through the Initial Teacher Training Market Review, led to the threat of removal of the right for established providers to offer programmes of initial teacher education beyond 2024 without reaccreditation. Such policy reform has been constructed in relation to a perceived gap in research about knowledge of the best way to educate or train new teachers. Using Lee S. Shulman’s concept of signature pedagogies we consider the varying ways in which theoretical ideas are underpinned by common models of, and approaches to, teacher education pedagogy. We mobilise Shulman to analyse five models, which we categorise as ‘knowledge-first’ or ‘people-first’, to see the extent to which, if at all, there is a theoretically informed signature pedagogy for initial teacher education. Our analysis shows that there is no one discernible knowledge base or theory that underpins a signature pedagogy for teacher education, but a suite of possibilities about how a signature pedagogy of teacher education could be understood. Moreover, it is our contention that policy reform of initial teacher education based on econometric analysis fails to recognise the most important dimension of a signature pedagogy, learning how to act with integrity as a professional teacher.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning to think, perform and act with integrity: does teacher education have a signature pedagogy, and why does this matter?\",\"authors\":\"C. Brooks, J. McIntyre, T. Mutton\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/lre.21.1.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Unprecedented reform to teacher education in England, through the Initial Teacher Training Market Review, led to the threat of removal of the right for established providers to offer programmes of initial teacher education beyond 2024 without reaccreditation. Such policy reform has been constructed in relation to a perceived gap in research about knowledge of the best way to educate or train new teachers. Using Lee S. Shulman’s concept of signature pedagogies we consider the varying ways in which theoretical ideas are underpinned by common models of, and approaches to, teacher education pedagogy. We mobilise Shulman to analyse five models, which we categorise as ‘knowledge-first’ or ‘people-first’, to see the extent to which, if at all, there is a theoretically informed signature pedagogy for initial teacher education. Our analysis shows that there is no one discernible knowledge base or theory that underpins a signature pedagogy for teacher education, but a suite of possibilities about how a signature pedagogy of teacher education could be understood. Moreover, it is our contention that policy reform of initial teacher education based on econometric analysis fails to recognise the most important dimension of a signature pedagogy, learning how to act with integrity as a professional teacher.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"London Review of Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"London Review of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.21.1.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.21.1.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

通过《初始教师培训市场审查》,英格兰对教师教育进行了前所未有的改革,导致老牌教师在2024年后提供初始教师教育课程而无需重新认证的权利可能被剥夺。这种政策改革是针对在教育或培训新教师的最佳方式方面的研究中存在的差距而构建的。利用李·S·舒尔曼的签名教育学概念,我们考虑了教师教育学的常见模式和方法所支撑的理论思想的不同方式。我们动员舒尔曼分析了五个模型,我们将其归类为“知识至上”或“以人为本”,以了解在多大程度上(如果有的话)存在理论上知情的初级教师教育标志性教学法。我们的分析表明,没有一个可辨别的知识基础或理论来支撑教师教育的标志性教学法,而是关于如何理解教师教育的特征性教学法的一系列可能性。此外,我们认为,基于计量经济学分析的初级师范教育政策改革未能认识到标志性教学法的最重要层面,即学习如何作为一名专业教师诚信行事。
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
Learning to think, perform and act with integrity: does teacher education have a signature pedagogy, and why does this matter?
Unprecedented reform to teacher education in England, through the Initial Teacher Training Market Review, led to the threat of removal of the right for established providers to offer programmes of initial teacher education beyond 2024 without reaccreditation. Such policy reform has been constructed in relation to a perceived gap in research about knowledge of the best way to educate or train new teachers. Using Lee S. Shulman’s concept of signature pedagogies we consider the varying ways in which theoretical ideas are underpinned by common models of, and approaches to, teacher education pedagogy. We mobilise Shulman to analyse five models, which we categorise as ‘knowledge-first’ or ‘people-first’, to see the extent to which, if at all, there is a theoretically informed signature pedagogy for initial teacher education. Our analysis shows that there is no one discernible knowledge base or theory that underpins a signature pedagogy for teacher education, but a suite of possibilities about how a signature pedagogy of teacher education could be understood. Moreover, it is our contention that policy reform of initial teacher education based on econometric analysis fails to recognise the most important dimension of a signature pedagogy, learning how to act with integrity as a professional teacher.
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
London Review of Education
London Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
39
审稿时长
48 weeks
期刊介绍: London Review of Education (LRE), an international peer-reviewed journal, aims to promote and disseminate high-quality analyses of important issues in contemporary education. As well as matters of public goals and policies, these issues include those of pedagogy, curriculum, organisation, resources, and institutional effectiveness. LRE wishes to report on these issues at all levels and in all types of education, and in national and transnational contexts. LRE wishes to show linkages between research and educational policy and practice, and to show how educational policy and practice are connected to other areas of social and economic policy.
期刊最新文献
Researcher developers: an emerging third space profession Decentring engineering education beyond the technical dimension: ethical skills framework Understanding international student experiences in Japanese higher education: belonging as an indicator of internationalisation success Critical thirding and third space collaboration: university professional staff and new type of knowledge production The third space, student and staff co-creation of gamified informal learning: an emerging model of co-design
×
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