Standards for Reporting Mathematics Professional Development in Research Studies.
Standards for Reporting Mathematics Professional Development in Research Studies.
复制标题
研究中数学专业发展的报告标准。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Paola Sztajn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paola Sztajn
本研究评论解决了需要在数学教育研究报告中描述数学专业发展的标准。考虑到数学专业发展是一个新兴的研究领域，现在是时候为这一领域的高质量报告设定期望。通过对《数学教育研究杂志》在过去十年中发表的关于这一主题的研究报告的审查，我提供了一个框架和一组功能，用于启动关于报告标准的利弊的讨论。我认为，当研究人员有标准来描述他们正在研究的数学专业发展，更好的质量将在新的研究领域。在这篇研究评论中，我讨论了在数学教育研究报告中描述数学专业发展（MPD）的标准的必要性。我开始的观察，数学教师教育是一个新兴的研究领域内的数学教育。因此，这一领域的研究人员应该及时解决设定质量水平的标准，这些标准应该成为该领域的标准。为了讨论报告标准，我检查了过去十年（2000年至2009年）发表在《数学教育研究杂志》（JRME）上的关于MPD的研究报告。我考虑了所有文章中报道的MPD的各个方面（例如，程序的目标和时间跨度）以及很少有研究人员报告的MPD特征（例如，教师在MPD设计中是否有发言权）。然后，我提出了一个框架和一组MPD功能，用于启动讨论的优点和缺点，有什么构成高质量的描述MPD的研究文章的报告标准。除了设定质量期望之外，关于报告标准的辩论还促进知识交流，从而在新兴研究界成员之间建立知识共享。然而，我写这篇研究评论的目的不仅是为了点燃参与此类讨论的领域，而且是为了展示我认为具有良好的报告期望可以带来的优势。我认为，当研究人员有了标准，
This Research Commentary addresses the need for standards for describing mathematics professional development in mathematics education research reports. Considering that mathematics professional development is an emerging research field, it is timely to set expectations for what constitutes high-quality reporting in this field. Through an examination of the research reports on the topic published in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education during the past decade, I offer a framework and a set of features to be used in initiating discussions about pros and cons of having reporting standards. I contend that when researchers have standards for describing the mathematics professional development they are studying, better quality will be attained in the new research field. In this Research Commentary, I discuss the need for standards for describing mathematics professional development (MPD) in mathematics education research reports. I begin with the observation that mathematics teacher education is an emerging field of study within mathematics education. Therefore, it is timely for researchers in this field to address standards that set the quality level that should become accepted as the norm in this field. To discuss reporting standards, I examine research reports about MPD published in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) during the past decade (2000 to 2009). I consider aspects of MPD that were reported in all articles (e.g., programs’ goals and time spans) as well as MPD features that few researchers reported (e.g., whether teachers had a voice in the MPD design). I then propose a framework and a set of MPD features to be used in initiating discussions about pros and cons of having reporting standards for what constitutes high-quality description of MPD in research articles. Beyond setting quality expectations, a debate about reporting standards promotes knowledge exchange, leading to the establishment of shared knowledge among members of the emerging research community. However, my goal with this Research Commentary is not only to ignite the field to engage in such discussions but also to present the advantages that I believe can result from having wellestab lished reporting expectations. I contend that when researchers have standards