Is the secret to effective lifelong learning lurking in the views of prospective kindergarten teachers? Comparing German and Hungarian prospective kindergarten teachers’ views on learning

Q3 Social Sciences
Nikolett Flick-Takács
{"title":"Is the secret to effective lifelong learning lurking in the views of prospective kindergarten teachers? Comparing German and Hungarian prospective kindergarten teachers’ views on learning","authors":"Nikolett Flick-Takács","doi":"10.2478/jped-2021-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Lifelong learning (LLL) became a basis for education policies in the 21st century. The GLLI (Global Lifelong Learning Index) ranks countries based on their performance in LLL (Kim, 2016). The present paper aims to compare a successful country (Germany) with a mid-performing country (Hungary) in two ways: (1) by comparing the two countries’ framework strategies and training requirements for lifelong learning, and (2) by comparing prospective views on learning in Hungarian (NH=14) and German (NG=14;) kindergarten student teacher groups using Verges’ association matrices in order to identify the key LLL elements in their views. The target group for the qualitative research was selected based on the pedagogical phenomenon that the views of prospective teachers have a great impact on their later work, including in relation to child development (Ránki, 2002; Dudás, 2005; Takács, 2016). The results show that there are some differences in the interpretation of LLL between the two countries, which can be observed in the regulatory documents and the associations made by student kindergarten teachers. The results reveal differences in the importance of self-regulated learning, learning motivation and social competences, and some common elements, like playfulness or joy, in learning activities.","PeriodicalId":38002,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2021-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Lifelong learning (LLL) became a basis for education policies in the 21st century. The GLLI (Global Lifelong Learning Index) ranks countries based on their performance in LLL (Kim, 2016). The present paper aims to compare a successful country (Germany) with a mid-performing country (Hungary) in two ways: (1) by comparing the two countries’ framework strategies and training requirements for lifelong learning, and (2) by comparing prospective views on learning in Hungarian (NH=14) and German (NG=14;) kindergarten student teacher groups using Verges’ association matrices in order to identify the key LLL elements in their views. The target group for the qualitative research was selected based on the pedagogical phenomenon that the views of prospective teachers have a great impact on their later work, including in relation to child development (Ránki, 2002; Dudás, 2005; Takács, 2016). The results show that there are some differences in the interpretation of LLL between the two countries, which can be observed in the regulatory documents and the associations made by student kindergarten teachers. The results reveal differences in the importance of self-regulated learning, learning motivation and social competences, and some common elements, like playfulness or joy, in learning activities.
有效的终身学习的秘密是否隐藏在未来幼儿园教师的观点中?德国和匈牙利准幼儿园教师的学习观比较
摘要终身学习已成为21世纪教育政策的基础。GLLI(全球终身学习指数)根据各国在法学方面的表现对其进行排名(Kim, 2016)。本文旨在通过两种方式对成功国家(德国)和表现中等的国家(匈牙利)进行比较:(1)比较两国的终身学习框架策略和培训要求;(2)使用Verges的关联矩阵比较匈牙利语(NH=14)和德语(NG=14)幼儿园学生教师群体对学习的前瞻性观点,以确定他们观点中的关键LLL要素。定性研究的目标群体是根据未来教师的观点对他们后来的工作,包括与儿童发展有关的工作有很大影响的教学现象来选择的(Ránki, 2002;Dudas, 2005;塔卡克斯,2016)。研究结果表明,两国对法律行为的解释存在一定差异,这可以从规范性文件和幼师协会中观察到。研究结果揭示了自主学习、学习动机和社会能力的重要性差异,以及学习活动中一些共同的因素,如玩耍或快乐。
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
Journal of Pedagogy
Journal of Pedagogy Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pedagogy (JoP) publishes outstanding educational research from a wide range of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical traditions. Diverse perspectives, critiques, and theories related to pedagogy – broadly conceptualized as intentional and political teaching and learning across many spaces, disciplines, and discourses – are welcome, from authors seeking a critical, international audience for their work. All manuscripts of sufficient complexity and rigor will be given full review. In particular, JoP seeks to publish scholarship that is critical of oppressive systems and the ways in which traditional and/or “commonsensical” pedagogical practices function to reproduce oppressive conditions and outcomes. Scholarship focused on macro, micro and meso level educational phenomena are welcome. JoP encourages authors to analyse and create alternative spaces within which such phenomena impact on and influence pedagogical practice in many different ways, from classrooms to forms of public pedagogy, and the myriad spaces in between. Manuscripts should be written for a broad, diverse, international audience of either researchers and/or practitioners. Accepted manuscripts will be available free to the public through JoP’s open-access policies, as well as featured in Elsevier''s Scopus indexing service, ERIC, and others.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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