你的发现取决于你如何看待:检查职前科学教师的知识和学习的资产和赤字视角

IF 4.7 2区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Studies in Science Education Pub Date : 2021-03-10 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932

Ron E. Gray, Scott P. McDonald, David Stroupe

{"title":"你的发现取决于你如何看待:检查职前科学教师的知识和学习的资产和赤字视角","authors":"Ron E. Gray, Scott P. McDonald, David Stroupe","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores how scholars have framed studies of preservice science teacher (PST) knowledge and learning over the past twelve years. We examined relevant studies between 2008 and 2020, coding them by theoretical perspective (cognitive or sociocultural), knowledge perspective (deficit or asset), and teaching level (elementary, secondary, or both) of the PSTs in the study. We found patterns between knowledge and theoretical perspective use, perspective use over time, and differences between studies of elementary and secondary level PSTs. We conclude with a proposed model of theoretical and knowledge perspectives as seen in the reviewed studies as well as further questions for the field.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What you find depends on how you see: examining asset and deficit perspectives of preservice science teachers’ knowledge and learning\",\"authors\":\"Ron E. Gray, Scott P. McDonald, David Stroupe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article explores how scholars have framed studies of preservice science teacher (PST) knowledge and learning over the past twelve years. We examined relevant studies between 2008 and 2020, coding them by theoretical perspective (cognitive or sociocultural), knowledge perspective (deficit or asset), and teaching level (elementary, secondary, or both) of the PSTs in the study. We found patterns between knowledge and theoretical perspective use, perspective use over time, and differences between studies of elementary and secondary level PSTs. We conclude with a proposed model of theoretical and knowledge perspectives as seen in the reviewed studies as well as further questions for the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932\",\"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":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897932","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: 9

摘要

摘要本文探讨了在过去的十二年里，学者们是如何对职前科学教师的知识和学习进行研究的。我们检查了2008年至2020年间的相关研究，根据研究中PST的理论视角（认知或社会文化）、知识视角（赤字或资产）和教学水平（小学、中学或两者）对其进行编码。我们发现了知识和理论视角使用之间的模式，视角使用随时间的变化，以及小学和中学PST研究之间的差异。最后，我们提出了一个理论和知识视角的模型，如回顾的研究所示，以及该领域的进一步问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

What you find depends on how you see: examining asset and deficit perspectives of preservice science teachers’ knowledge and learning

ABSTRACT This article explores how scholars have framed studies of preservice science teacher (PST) knowledge and learning over the past twelve years. We examined relevant studies between 2008 and 2020, coding them by theoretical perspective (cognitive or sociocultural), knowledge perspective (deficit or asset), and teaching level (elementary, secondary, or both) of the PSTs in the study. We found patterns between knowledge and theoretical perspective use, perspective use over time, and differences between studies of elementary and secondary level PSTs. We conclude with a proposed model of theoretical and knowledge perspectives as seen in the reviewed studies as well as further questions for the field.

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

Studies in Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-

CiteScore

15.30

自引率

2.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to: maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal; publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin; publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity. Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers. Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.