一个自由裁量的工具箱:在挪威高中教学有争议问题时的推理

Silje Andresen
{"title":"一个自由裁量的工具箱:在挪威高中教学有争议问题时的推理","authors":"Silje Andresen","doi":"10.7577/pp.4362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using a toolkit approach in combination with the concept of street-level bureaucracy and theories of discretion, this article has empirically investigated the resources that influence teachers’ discretionary reasoning when teaching controversial issues. The analysis has been based on 32 classroom observations at two upper secondary schools in Oslo, Norway, in one Religion and Ethics and one Social Science class, and interviews with 16 teachers who taught the same subjects. The results have shown that professional competence, professional and personal values, and relationships with pupils worked as a toolkit of resources that teachers could draw upon when making discretionary judgments in different contexts. A better understanding of teachers’ use of discretionary reasoning may enable curriculum developers and policymakers to support teachers in the complex social landscape of teaching controversial issues.","PeriodicalId":53464,"journal":{"name":"Professions and Professionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Discretionary Toolkit: Reasoning When Teaching Controversial Issues in Norwegian Upper Secondary School\",\"authors\":\"Silje Andresen\",\"doi\":\"10.7577/pp.4362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using a toolkit approach in combination with the concept of street-level bureaucracy and theories of discretion, this article has empirically investigated the resources that influence teachers’ discretionary reasoning when teaching controversial issues. The analysis has been based on 32 classroom observations at two upper secondary schools in Oslo, Norway, in one Religion and Ethics and one Social Science class, and interviews with 16 teachers who taught the same subjects. The results have shown that professional competence, professional and personal values, and relationships with pupils worked as a toolkit of resources that teachers could draw upon when making discretionary judgments in different contexts. A better understanding of teachers’ use of discretionary reasoning may enable curriculum developers and policymakers to support teachers in the complex social landscape of teaching controversial issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.4362\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professions and Professionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.4362","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

本文采用工具包的方法,结合街头官僚机构的概念和自由裁量权理论,对影响教师在教授争议问题时自由裁量推理的资源进行了实证研究。该分析基于挪威奥斯陆两所高中在一节宗教与伦理课和一节社会科学课上的32次课堂观察,以及对16名教授相同科目的教师的采访。研究结果表明,专业能力、专业和个人价值观以及与学生的关系是教师在不同背景下做出自由裁量判断时可以利用的资源工具包。更好地了解教师对自由裁量推理的使用,可以使课程开发人员和政策制定者在教授有争议问题的复杂社会环境中为教师提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Discretionary Toolkit: Reasoning When Teaching Controversial Issues in Norwegian Upper Secondary School
Using a toolkit approach in combination with the concept of street-level bureaucracy and theories of discretion, this article has empirically investigated the resources that influence teachers’ discretionary reasoning when teaching controversial issues. The analysis has been based on 32 classroom observations at two upper secondary schools in Oslo, Norway, in one Religion and Ethics and one Social Science class, and interviews with 16 teachers who taught the same subjects. The results have shown that professional competence, professional and personal values, and relationships with pupils worked as a toolkit of resources that teachers could draw upon when making discretionary judgments in different contexts. A better understanding of teachers’ use of discretionary reasoning may enable curriculum developers and policymakers to support teachers in the complex social landscape of teaching controversial issues.
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
Professions and Professionalism
Professions and Professionalism Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Professions and Professionalism (P&P) is an open-access, net-based, peer-reviewed and English-language journal. The Journal invites research-based empirical, theoretical or synoptic articles focusing on traditional professions as well as other knowledge-based occupational groups approached from any perspective or discipline. By prioritizing no single theoretical horizon or methodological approach, the journal creates a space for the development of the research field. Aims: To develop the study of professions and professionalism theoretically and empirically, To contribute to the development of the study of professions and professionalism as an international interdisciplinary field of research, To become an important publication channel for the international research community.
×
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