为公平、社会公正和/或多样性而学习教学:衡量标准是否合格?

IF 3.1 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Wen-Chia Chang, Marilyn Cochran-Smith
{"title":"为公平、社会公正和/或多样性而学习教学:衡量标准是否合格?","authors":"Wen-Chia Chang, Marilyn Cochran-Smith","doi":"10.1177/00224871221075284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews 45 assessment tools designed to capture aspects of teaching and learning to teach for equity, social justice, and/or diversity to understand whether the existing tools measure up to the most pressing concerns in teacher education. First, we provide an overview of the 45 assessment tools, focusing on conventional properties. Second, we argue that the tools need to be examined beyond the conventional categories by attending to culture in both the content of assessments and their development processes. Finally, we use Kirkhart’s multicultural validity framework to reexamine the tools, focusing on their theoretical, methodological, relational, experiential, and consequential dimensions. Our analysis reveals that only a few assessments “measure up,” when examined in terms of multicultural validity. This means they tend not to do enough to address the most pressing challenges in today’s teacher education context or to advance equity and social justice goals at a deep level.","PeriodicalId":17162,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teacher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning to Teach for Equity, Social Justice, and/or Diversity: Do the Measures Measure Up?\",\"authors\":\"Wen-Chia Chang, Marilyn Cochran-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00224871221075284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article reviews 45 assessment tools designed to capture aspects of teaching and learning to teach for equity, social justice, and/or diversity to understand whether the existing tools measure up to the most pressing concerns in teacher education. First, we provide an overview of the 45 assessment tools, focusing on conventional properties. Second, we argue that the tools need to be examined beyond the conventional categories by attending to culture in both the content of assessments and their development processes. Finally, we use Kirkhart’s multicultural validity framework to reexamine the tools, focusing on their theoretical, methodological, relational, experiential, and consequential dimensions. Our analysis reveals that only a few assessments “measure up,” when examined in terms of multicultural validity. This means they tend not to do enough to address the most pressing challenges in today’s teacher education context or to advance equity and social justice goals at a deep level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Teacher Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Teacher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221075284\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221075284","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: 12

摘要

本文回顾了45种评估工具,旨在捕捉教学的各个方面,以促进公平、社会正义和/或多样性,从而了解现有工具是否符合教师教育中最紧迫的问题。首先,我们概述了45种评估工具,重点介绍了传统属性。其次,我们认为,需要在评估内容及其发展过程中关注文化,从而超越传统类别对这些工具进行审查。最后,我们使用Kirkhart的多元文化有效性框架来重新审视这些工具,重点关注它们的理论、方法、关系、经验和后果维度。我们的分析表明,只有少数评估在多元文化有效性方面“合格”。这意味着他们在应对当今教师教育背景下最紧迫的挑战或在深层次推进公平和社会正义目标方面往往做得不够。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning to Teach for Equity, Social Justice, and/or Diversity: Do the Measures Measure Up?
This article reviews 45 assessment tools designed to capture aspects of teaching and learning to teach for equity, social justice, and/or diversity to understand whether the existing tools measure up to the most pressing concerns in teacher education. First, we provide an overview of the 45 assessment tools, focusing on conventional properties. Second, we argue that the tools need to be examined beyond the conventional categories by attending to culture in both the content of assessments and their development processes. Finally, we use Kirkhart’s multicultural validity framework to reexamine the tools, focusing on their theoretical, methodological, relational, experiential, and consequential dimensions. Our analysis reveals that only a few assessments “measure up,” when examined in terms of multicultural validity. This means they tend not to do enough to address the most pressing challenges in today’s teacher education context or to advance equity and social justice goals at a deep level.
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
Journal of Teacher Education
Journal of Teacher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Teacher Education, the flagship journal of AACTE, is to serve as a research forum for a diverse group of scholars who are invested in the preparation and continued support of teachers and who can have a significant voice in discussions and decision-making around issues of teacher education. One of the fundamental goals of the journal is the use of evidence from rigorous investigation to identify and address the increasingly complex issues confronting teacher education at the national and global levels. These issues include but are not limited to preparing teachers to effectively address the needs of marginalized youth, their families and communities; program design and impact; selection, recruitment and retention of teachers from underrepresented groups; local and national policy; accountability; and routes to certification. JTE does not publish book reviews, program evaluations or articles solely describing programs, program components, courses or personal experiences. In addition, JTE does not accept manuscripts that are solely about the development or validation of an instrument unless the use of that instrument yields data providing new insights into issues of relevance to teacher education (MSU, February 2016).
×
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