4.4 Article

Facilitating Whole-Class Discussions in History: A Framework for Preparing Teacher Candidates

期刊

JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 278-293

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022487117707463

关键词

practice-based teacher education; social studies teacher education; preservice teacher education; social studies education; history education

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1089179]
  2. Spencer Foundation [201600110]
  3. Investigating Student Learning (ISL) Program - University of Michigan Office of the Provost
  4. Investigating Student Learning (ISL) Program - University of Michigan College of Engineering
  5. Investigating Student Learning (ISL) Program - University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching
  6. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1089179] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both the Common Core Standards for Literacy and the College, Career, and Civic Life Framework for Social Studies State Standards underscore the importance of classroom discussion for the development of high-level literacy and subject-matter knowledge. Yet, discussion remains stubbornly absent in social studies classrooms, which tend toward rote memorization and textbook work. In this article, we discuss our efforts to design practice-based methods instruction that prepares preservice teachers to facilitate text-based, whole-class discussion. We propose a framework for facilitating historical discussions and illustrate it with examples from videos of teacher candidates enacting the practice in K-12 classrooms. The framework assists not only in conceptualizing and naming the discrete components that constitute disciplinary discussion facilitation but also in highlighting where novices appear to struggle. Our analysis has implications for improving teacher education that seeks to prepare novices for ambitious instruction called for by the new literacy and social studies standards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据