社会学教师教育研究的学科与批判分歧:2009-2019年文献综述

IF 2.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
L. Jay
{"title":"社会学教师教育研究的学科与批判分歧:2009-2019年文献综述","authors":"L. Jay","doi":"10.1080/00933104.2022.2077156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For decades, scholarship on preservice social studies teacher education in the United States has grappled with the unsystematic nature of research in this field. Given the broad and enduring attempt to overcome these divisions, however, it is noteworthy that there has not been a recent attempt to systematically categorize those divisions. This literature review analyzes 139 articles published between 2009 and 2019 through the lens of the divisions between “traditional,” “disciplinary,” and “critical” strands of social studies research on teacher education. Results indicate that disciplinary and critical strands dominate the contemporary literature and provide two distinct research agendas for understanding the development of new social studies teachers. Reconsidering social studies teacher education as a field containing two divergent systems, this review maps the fault lines defining the field and explores how it might respond to those divisions in ways that are meaningful for researchers, students, and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":46808,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Social Education","volume":"50 1","pages":"339 - 374"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The disciplinary and critical divide in social studies teacher education research: A review of the literature from 2009–2019\",\"authors\":\"L. Jay\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00933104.2022.2077156\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT For decades, scholarship on preservice social studies teacher education in the United States has grappled with the unsystematic nature of research in this field. Given the broad and enduring attempt to overcome these divisions, however, it is noteworthy that there has not been a recent attempt to systematically categorize those divisions. This literature review analyzes 139 articles published between 2009 and 2019 through the lens of the divisions between “traditional,” “disciplinary,” and “critical” strands of social studies research on teacher education. Results indicate that disciplinary and critical strands dominate the contemporary literature and provide two distinct research agendas for understanding the development of new social studies teachers. Reconsidering social studies teacher education as a field containing two divergent systems, this review maps the fault lines defining the field and explores how it might respond to those divisions in ways that are meaningful for researchers, students, and practitioners.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Research in Social Education\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"339 - 374\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Research in Social Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2077156\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Theory and Research in Social Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2077156","RegionNum":2,"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: 4

摘要

几十年来,美国职前社会研究教师教育的学术研究一直在努力解决这一领域研究的非系统性问题。然而,鉴于为克服这些分歧所作的广泛和持久的努力,值得注意的是,最近没有尝试系统地对这些分歧进行分类。本文献综述通过对教师教育社会研究的“传统”、“学科”和“批判”三股的划分,分析了2009年至2019年间发表的139篇文章。结果表明,学科和批判的观点主导了当代文献,并为理解新社会研究教师的发展提供了两个不同的研究议程。重新考虑社会研究教师教育作为一个包含两个不同系统的领域,本综述绘制了定义该领域的断层线,并探讨了它如何以对研究人员、学生和从业者有意义的方式应对这些分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The disciplinary and critical divide in social studies teacher education research: A review of the literature from 2009–2019
ABSTRACT For decades, scholarship on preservice social studies teacher education in the United States has grappled with the unsystematic nature of research in this field. Given the broad and enduring attempt to overcome these divisions, however, it is noteworthy that there has not been a recent attempt to systematically categorize those divisions. This literature review analyzes 139 articles published between 2009 and 2019 through the lens of the divisions between “traditional,” “disciplinary,” and “critical” strands of social studies research on teacher education. Results indicate that disciplinary and critical strands dominate the contemporary literature and provide two distinct research agendas for understanding the development of new social studies teachers. Reconsidering social studies teacher education as a field containing two divergent systems, this review maps the fault lines defining the field and explores how it might respond to those divisions in ways that are meaningful for researchers, students, and practitioners.
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
Theory and Research in Social Education
Theory and Research in Social Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
30.80%
发文量
36
×
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