What matters for competent teaching? A multinational comparison of teaching practicum assessment rubrics

IF 4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Lee Rusznyak , Lisa Österling
{"title":"What matters for competent teaching? A multinational comparison of teaching practicum assessment rubrics","authors":"Lee Rusznyak ,&nbsp;Lisa Österling","doi":"10.1016/j.tate.2024.104745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Practicum assessment rubrics have a backwash effect on preservice teachers' learning through the criteria they transmit. This article presents a documentary analysis of ten rubrics used across six countries: South Africa, India, England, Singapore, Canada, and Sweden. We compare the dispositions, knowledge, outcomes, and reasoning. We use Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) to show how practicum assessments are legitimated differently. Some rubrics emphasise preservice teachers’ dispositions and whether they implement protocols correctly. Others emphasise their capacity for reasoning in context. These positions call for teacher educators and policymakers to interrogate where the emphasis is in their own assessments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48430,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Teacher Education","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 104745"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X24002786/pdfft?md5=94e04c471514ff92b28c30238337e687&pid=1-s2.0-S0742051X24002786-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X24002786","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Practicum assessment rubrics have a backwash effect on preservice teachers' learning through the criteria they transmit. This article presents a documentary analysis of ten rubrics used across six countries: South Africa, India, England, Singapore, Canada, and Sweden. We compare the dispositions, knowledge, outcomes, and reasoning. We use Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) to show how practicum assessments are legitimated differently. Some rubrics emphasise preservice teachers’ dispositions and whether they implement protocols correctly. Others emphasise their capacity for reasoning in context. These positions call for teacher educators and policymakers to interrogate where the emphasis is in their own assessments.

胜任教学的关键是什么?多国教学实习评估标准比较
实习评估标准通过其传递的标准对职前教师的学习产生反向影响。本文对六个国家使用的十种评分标准进行了文献分析:南非、印度、英国、新加坡、加拿大和瑞典。我们对处置、知识、结果和推理进行了比较。我们使用合法化规范理论(LCT)来说明实习评估是如何以不同方式合法化的。一些评分标准强调职前教师的处置能力以及他们是否正确执行协议。另一些则强调他们在情境中的推理能力。这些立场要求教师教育者和政策制定者审视自己的评估重点在哪里。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Teaching and Teacher Education
Teaching and Teacher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
12.80%
发文量
294
审稿时长
86 days
期刊介绍: Teaching and Teacher Education is an international journal concerned primarily with teachers, teaching, and/or teacher education situated in an international perspective and context. The journal focuses on early childhood through high school (secondary education), teacher preparation, along with higher education concerning teacher professional development and/or teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education is a multidisciplinary journal committed to no single approach, discipline, methodology, or paradigm. The journal welcomes varied approaches (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) to empirical research; also publishing high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Manuscripts should enhance, build upon, and/or extend the boundaries of theory, research, and/or practice in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education does not publish unsolicited Book Reviews.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信