Understanding teacher affect, knowledge, and instruction over time: an agenda for research on productive disposition for teaching mathematics
Understanding teacher affect, knowledge, and instruction over time: an agenda for research on productive disposition for teaching mathematics
复制标题
随着时间的推移了解教师的情感、知识和教学：数学教学富有成效的倾向研究议程
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Kilpatrick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Erik Jacobson;J. Kilpatrick
教师影响严重影响教学和学习（Cross 2009; Pajares 1992; Philipp 2007; Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth 2014）。教师影响，包括部分认知特征，如态度和信念，以及非认知特征，如情感、动机和毅力，通常被定义为与纯认知特征，如智商或数学知识相对立。因此，教师情感的研究往往与教师认知分离（Philipp 2007; Thompson 1992）。相比之下，一些研究人员将认知和部分认知类别分解，将数学教师知识和信念归为信念（例如，Leatham 2006）或知识（例如，Beswick et al. 2012）。数学教学知识（MKT）是最广泛使用的教师知识框架之一，它被定义为包括“技能、习惯、情感和知识”（Ball et al. 2008; p. 403）。尽管MKT的定义似乎包括教师情感的组成部分，但MKT的测量并不包括特定于情感的项目（例如，Hill等人，2004年）。正如这些例子所表明的那样，教师影响被认为是研究的一个关键领域，但研究人员一直在努力研究如何概念化和测量对教学内容和上下文敏感的结构（例如，Herbel-Eisenmann等人2006；Newton 2009），这甚至可能与教师自己的教学实践不一致（cf. Francis 2015）。此外，研究人员一直在努力阐明教师在教师教育过程中或在既定教学实践背景下如何影响变化（Philipp 2007）。管理这些复杂的互动导致教师影响结构的定义与教学本身相距甚远。
Teacher affect heavily influences instruction and learning (Cross 2009; Pajares 1992; Philipp 2007; Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth 2014). Teacher affect, which includes partially cognitive traits such as attitudes and beliefs as well as noncognitive traits such as emotion, motivation, and grit, is often defined in opposition to purely cognitive traits such as IQ or mathematical knowledge. As a consequence, teacher affect has often been studied in isolation from teacher cognition (Philipp 2007; Thompson 1992).By contrast, some researchers collapse cognitive and partially cognitive categories, grouping mathematics teacher knowledge and beliefs together as beliefs (e.g., Leatham 2006) or as knowledge (e.g., Beswick et al. 2012). Mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT), one of the most widely used frameworks for teacher knowledge, is defined to comprise ‘‘skills, habits, sensibilities as well as knowledge’’ (Ball et al. 2008; p. 403). Although this definition of MKT seems to include components of teacher affect, measures of MKT do not include affect-specific items (e.g., Hill et al. 2004). As these examples suggest, teacher affect is recognized as a critical area for research, but researchers have wrestled with how to conceptualize and measure constructs that are sensitive to the content and context of instruction (e.g., Herbel-Eisenmann et al. 2006; Newton 2009) and that can even seem inconsistent with teachers’ own instructional practice (cf., Francis 2015). Moreover, researchers have struggled to clarify how teacher affect changes during teacher education or in the context of established instructional practice (Philipp 2007). Managing these complex interactions has led to definitions of teacher affect constructs that are distant from teaching itself.