教师与家长对幼儿教师职业化的看法:一项混合方法研究

Tzuo Pei-Wen, Tan Liang See, Yong Foong Ling, Liang Jyh-Chong
{"title":"教师与家长对幼儿教师职业化的看法:一项混合方法研究","authors":"Tzuo Pei-Wen, Tan Liang See, Yong Foong Ling, Liang Jyh-Chong","doi":"10.1177/183693911504000214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IT IS OF CONCERN THAT the professionalism of early childhood teachers (PECT) is nebulous in the eyes of the public, and parents' perceptions of PECT may become an obstacle to the school–home partnership. This study explores teachers' versus parents' perceptions of the various characteristics of PECT to identify gaps among them and suggest ways to close these gaps. A mixed-methods research methodology was employed with 219 teacher and parent participants in Singapore. The quantitative findings indicate first that the teachers perceived PECT to be composed of two dimensions as two levels of capacity: fundamental pedagogical capacity and accumulated classroom studies of children. In contrast, the parents perceived PECT as a single dimension. Second, the gaps between teachers' and parents' perceptions were identified as four factor items of PECT, including characteristics of understanding a child's needs, being able to create good relations with children, professional development and valuing of ethics. We discuss these findings and suggest how to reach coherent views on PECT and create better dynamics between the two parties.","PeriodicalId":80604,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of early childhood","volume":"40 1","pages":"117 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/183693911504000214","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teachers' versus Parents' Perceptions of Professionalism of Early Childhood Teachers: A Mixed-Methods Study\",\"authors\":\"Tzuo Pei-Wen, Tan Liang See, Yong Foong Ling, Liang Jyh-Chong\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/183693911504000214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IT IS OF CONCERN THAT the professionalism of early childhood teachers (PECT) is nebulous in the eyes of the public, and parents' perceptions of PECT may become an obstacle to the school–home partnership. This study explores teachers' versus parents' perceptions of the various characteristics of PECT to identify gaps among them and suggest ways to close these gaps. A mixed-methods research methodology was employed with 219 teacher and parent participants in Singapore. The quantitative findings indicate first that the teachers perceived PECT to be composed of two dimensions as two levels of capacity: fundamental pedagogical capacity and accumulated classroom studies of children. In contrast, the parents perceived PECT as a single dimension. Second, the gaps between teachers' and parents' perceptions were identified as four factor items of PECT, including characteristics of understanding a child's needs, being able to create good relations with children, professional development and valuing of ethics. We discuss these findings and suggest how to reach coherent views on PECT and create better dynamics between the two parties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian journal of early childhood\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"117 - 126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/183693911504000214\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian journal of early childhood\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911504000214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of early childhood","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911504000214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

值得关注的是,幼儿教师的专业性在公众眼中是模糊的,家长对幼儿教师的看法可能成为学校与家庭合作的障碍。本研究探讨了教师和家长对PECT各种特征的看法,以确定他们之间的差距,并提出缩小这些差距的方法。采用混合方法的研究方法,对新加坡的219名教师和家长进行了调查。定量研究结果首先表明,教师认为PECT由两个维度组成,即两个水平的能力:基础教学能力和儿童课堂学习的积累。相比之下,家长们认为pet是一个单一的维度。其次,将教师和家长的认知差距确定为PECT的四个因素项目,包括理解儿童需求的特征,能够与儿童建立良好的关系,专业发展和道德价值观。我们讨论了这些发现,并建议如何在PECT上达成一致的观点,并在双方之间创造更好的动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teachers' versus Parents' Perceptions of Professionalism of Early Childhood Teachers: A Mixed-Methods Study
IT IS OF CONCERN THAT the professionalism of early childhood teachers (PECT) is nebulous in the eyes of the public, and parents' perceptions of PECT may become an obstacle to the school–home partnership. This study explores teachers' versus parents' perceptions of the various characteristics of PECT to identify gaps among them and suggest ways to close these gaps. A mixed-methods research methodology was employed with 219 teacher and parent participants in Singapore. The quantitative findings indicate first that the teachers perceived PECT to be composed of two dimensions as two levels of capacity: fundamental pedagogical capacity and accumulated classroom studies of children. In contrast, the parents perceived PECT as a single dimension. Second, the gaps between teachers' and parents' perceptions were identified as four factor items of PECT, including characteristics of understanding a child's needs, being able to create good relations with children, professional development and valuing of ethics. We discuss these findings and suggest how to reach coherent views on PECT and create better dynamics between the two parties.
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