{"title":"面对当代教育争议","authors":"Eric M. Anderman, D. Cristol","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most individuals would be extremely uncomfortable if they learned that their medical doctor was using medical practices that were convenient and easily implemented, but not actually supported by research. Many of us would quite likely seek a second opinion if we became aware of such behavior. But can the same be said of an educator who uses instructional practices that are not informed by research? Or if an educator uses instructional practices that research has clearly demonstrated as being ineffective? Education is a field that is rife with such controversies. Several recent books (e.g., Berliner & Glass, 2014; Proctor et al., 2015) have explored some of these controversies in depth. Despite this, it has been our observation that there are some educational practices that are widely used, despite there being ample evidence indicating their ineffectiveness. To put this into the current political context, it is important to note that debates have raged recently regarding both the content and instructional practices that schools should (and should not) be using. With regard to content, current debates have focused in particular on topics such as sex education, climate change, and race. Controversies also have been reignited with regard to the books that students should (and should not) be asked to read as part of the curriculum. This issue has received much media attention (e.g., this was recently covered by The New York Times). But current debates have focused not just on the content that is taught, but also on the types of instructional practices that educators use. For example, in some communities, instructional practices that focus on nurturing socioemotional outcomes are under attack (Prothero & Blad, 2021). As editors of Theory into Practice, we decided to devote an issue of the journal to an exploration of the research behind some contemporary controversial issues that are alive and well in schools. Rather than deciding on the issues that we deemed as relevant, we developed a call for proposals for articles for a special issue of the journal focusing on contemporary controversies in education. We put out an open call and disseminated it widely. In the end, we received an extraordinary number of extremely high-quality proposals. Given the quality of the proposals and the potential implications of the articles in positively impacting policy and practice, we decided to devote two issues of the journal to these articles. Thus we are delighted that the summer 2022 issue includes the first set of these articles.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"42 1","pages":"251 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confronting contemporary controversies in education\",\"authors\":\"Eric M. Anderman, D. Cristol\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most individuals would be extremely uncomfortable if they learned that their medical doctor was using medical practices that were convenient and easily implemented, but not actually supported by research. Many of us would quite likely seek a second opinion if we became aware of such behavior. But can the same be said of an educator who uses instructional practices that are not informed by research? Or if an educator uses instructional practices that research has clearly demonstrated as being ineffective? Education is a field that is rife with such controversies. Several recent books (e.g., Berliner & Glass, 2014; Proctor et al., 2015) have explored some of these controversies in depth. Despite this, it has been our observation that there are some educational practices that are widely used, despite there being ample evidence indicating their ineffectiveness. To put this into the current political context, it is important to note that debates have raged recently regarding both the content and instructional practices that schools should (and should not) be using. With regard to content, current debates have focused in particular on topics such as sex education, climate change, and race. Controversies also have been reignited with regard to the books that students should (and should not) be asked to read as part of the curriculum. This issue has received much media attention (e.g., this was recently covered by The New York Times). But current debates have focused not just on the content that is taught, but also on the types of instructional practices that educators use. For example, in some communities, instructional practices that focus on nurturing socioemotional outcomes are under attack (Prothero & Blad, 2021). As editors of Theory into Practice, we decided to devote an issue of the journal to an exploration of the research behind some contemporary controversial issues that are alive and well in schools. Rather than deciding on the issues that we deemed as relevant, we developed a call for proposals for articles for a special issue of the journal focusing on contemporary controversies in education. We put out an open call and disseminated it widely. In the end, we received an extraordinary number of extremely high-quality proposals. Given the quality of the proposals and the potential implications of the articles in positively impacting policy and practice, we decided to devote two issues of the journal to these articles. Thus we are delighted that the summer 2022 issue includes the first set of these articles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory Into Practice\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"251 - 253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory Into Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371\",\"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 Into Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371","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}
Confronting contemporary controversies in education
Most individuals would be extremely uncomfortable if they learned that their medical doctor was using medical practices that were convenient and easily implemented, but not actually supported by research. Many of us would quite likely seek a second opinion if we became aware of such behavior. But can the same be said of an educator who uses instructional practices that are not informed by research? Or if an educator uses instructional practices that research has clearly demonstrated as being ineffective? Education is a field that is rife with such controversies. Several recent books (e.g., Berliner & Glass, 2014; Proctor et al., 2015) have explored some of these controversies in depth. Despite this, it has been our observation that there are some educational practices that are widely used, despite there being ample evidence indicating their ineffectiveness. To put this into the current political context, it is important to note that debates have raged recently regarding both the content and instructional practices that schools should (and should not) be using. With regard to content, current debates have focused in particular on topics such as sex education, climate change, and race. Controversies also have been reignited with regard to the books that students should (and should not) be asked to read as part of the curriculum. This issue has received much media attention (e.g., this was recently covered by The New York Times). But current debates have focused not just on the content that is taught, but also on the types of instructional practices that educators use. For example, in some communities, instructional practices that focus on nurturing socioemotional outcomes are under attack (Prothero & Blad, 2021). As editors of Theory into Practice, we decided to devote an issue of the journal to an exploration of the research behind some contemporary controversial issues that are alive and well in schools. Rather than deciding on the issues that we deemed as relevant, we developed a call for proposals for articles for a special issue of the journal focusing on contemporary controversies in education. We put out an open call and disseminated it widely. In the end, we received an extraordinary number of extremely high-quality proposals. Given the quality of the proposals and the potential implications of the articles in positively impacting policy and practice, we decided to devote two issues of the journal to these articles. Thus we are delighted that the summer 2022 issue includes the first set of these articles.
期刊介绍:
Published since 1962, Theory Into Practice (TIP) is a nationally recognized, peer reviewed journal featuring multiple perspectives and scholarly, yet practical and engaging, discussions of important issues in education. TIP publishes articles covering all levels and areas of education, including learning and teaching; counseling; assessment; teacher education and professional development; classroom management; administration and supervision; curriculum; policy; and technology. Each issue of TIP is devoted to a timely theme developed by a Guest Editor who has expertise in the theme area.