文脉化过去引领未来:教育文化的三个关键理论框架

Stephen Secules, J. Mejia
{"title":"文脉化过去引领未来:教育文化的三个关键理论框架","authors":"Stephen Secules, J. Mejia","doi":"10.21061/SEE.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The engineering education research community has increasingly acknowledged the importance of addressing equity and inclusion. Qualitative research approaches have a unique power to reform classroom practice, create empathy for students, understand context, and point towards new paradigms and solutions. In our work, we have found critical social theories provide useful ways of looking at, critiquing, and reimagining inequitable educational settings. However, many scholars theory in a limited way with theory, treating it as a utilitarian choice rather than requiring deep engagement. Without careful consideration of the situated historical context for a theory’s origin, we can distort its original purpose. Purpose: This paper highlights funds of knowledge, cultural production, and cultural construction as three prominent theoretical frameworks for educational culture. Following the methodological approach of historicizing, we recontextualize the present use of the theoretical frameworks by better understanding their historical context. Scope: We introduce each of the three frameworks and present an account of the history of the origins of the frameworks, emphasizing the context within which the originators found themselves and what problems they saw themselves as addressing. Next, we discuss how it is currently being leveraged in US engineering education or related fields, noting perceived problems or patterns related to the application of theory. Finally, we consider the differences between the past and the present contexts to help guide future use of the framework, noting what lessons we can take away from the past that speak to issues in the present. Conclusion: We compare the nuanced differences between the frameworks and call on readers to make a more careful and less casual choice regarding theory. We also note the importance of considering historicity, situatedness, and reflexivity when deeply engaging with research on educational culture and critical theoretical approaches.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contextualizing the Past to Guide the Future: Situating Three Critical Theoretical Frameworks for Educational Culture\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Secules, J. Mejia\",\"doi\":\"10.21061/SEE.51\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The engineering education research community has increasingly acknowledged the importance of addressing equity and inclusion. Qualitative research approaches have a unique power to reform classroom practice, create empathy for students, understand context, and point towards new paradigms and solutions. In our work, we have found critical social theories provide useful ways of looking at, critiquing, and reimagining inequitable educational settings. However, many scholars theory in a limited way with theory, treating it as a utilitarian choice rather than requiring deep engagement. Without careful consideration of the situated historical context for a theory’s origin, we can distort its original purpose. Purpose: This paper highlights funds of knowledge, cultural production, and cultural construction as three prominent theoretical frameworks for educational culture. Following the methodological approach of historicizing, we recontextualize the present use of the theoretical frameworks by better understanding their historical context. Scope: We introduce each of the three frameworks and present an account of the history of the origins of the frameworks, emphasizing the context within which the originators found themselves and what problems they saw themselves as addressing. Next, we discuss how it is currently being leveraged in US engineering education or related fields, noting perceived problems or patterns related to the application of theory. Finally, we consider the differences between the past and the present contexts to help guide future use of the framework, noting what lessons we can take away from the past that speak to issues in the present. Conclusion: We compare the nuanced differences between the frameworks and call on readers to make a more careful and less casual choice regarding theory. We also note the importance of considering historicity, situatedness, and reflexivity when deeply engaging with research on educational culture and critical theoretical approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117277,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Engineering Education\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Engineering Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.51\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:工程教育研究界越来越认识到解决公平和包容的重要性。定性研究方法具有独特的力量,可以改革课堂实践,为学生创造同理心,理解背景,并指出新的范例和解决方案。在我们的工作中,我们发现批判社会理论为观察、批判和重新想象不公平的教育环境提供了有用的方法。然而,许多学者对理论的理解是有限的,将其视为一种功利的选择,而不需要深入的参与。如果不仔细考虑理论起源的历史背景,我们就会歪曲其最初的目的。目的:本文强调知识资金、文化生产和文化建设是教育文化的三个重要理论框架。遵循历史化的方法论,我们通过更好地理解它们的历史背景,将理论框架的当前使用重新语境化。范围:我们介绍了三个框架中的每一个,并介绍了框架起源的历史,强调发起人发现自己的背景以及他们认为自己正在解决的问题。接下来,我们讨论了目前如何在美国工程教育或相关领域利用它,注意到与理论应用相关的感知问题或模式。最后,我们考虑了过去和现在背景之间的差异,以帮助指导该框架的未来使用,并指出我们可以从过去吸取哪些教训来解决当前的问题。结论:我们比较了框架之间的细微差别,并呼吁读者在理论方面做出更谨慎、更少随意的选择。我们还注意到,在深入研究教育文化和批判理论方法时,考虑历史性、情境性和反思性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contextualizing the Past to Guide the Future: Situating Three Critical Theoretical Frameworks for Educational Culture
Background: The engineering education research community has increasingly acknowledged the importance of addressing equity and inclusion. Qualitative research approaches have a unique power to reform classroom practice, create empathy for students, understand context, and point towards new paradigms and solutions. In our work, we have found critical social theories provide useful ways of looking at, critiquing, and reimagining inequitable educational settings. However, many scholars theory in a limited way with theory, treating it as a utilitarian choice rather than requiring deep engagement. Without careful consideration of the situated historical context for a theory’s origin, we can distort its original purpose. Purpose: This paper highlights funds of knowledge, cultural production, and cultural construction as three prominent theoretical frameworks for educational culture. Following the methodological approach of historicizing, we recontextualize the present use of the theoretical frameworks by better understanding their historical context. Scope: We introduce each of the three frameworks and present an account of the history of the origins of the frameworks, emphasizing the context within which the originators found themselves and what problems they saw themselves as addressing. Next, we discuss how it is currently being leveraged in US engineering education or related fields, noting perceived problems or patterns related to the application of theory. Finally, we consider the differences between the past and the present contexts to help guide future use of the framework, noting what lessons we can take away from the past that speak to issues in the present. Conclusion: We compare the nuanced differences between the frameworks and call on readers to make a more careful and less casual choice regarding theory. We also note the importance of considering historicity, situatedness, and reflexivity when deeply engaging with research on educational culture and critical theoretical approaches.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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