The role of literacy instruction-and more specifically the ability to read critically-in democratic and Social Studies education has not been fully or explicitly explored. This gap is also strikingly evident in the reluctance of many Social Studies teachers to incorporate reading instruction into their practice. In this paper we describe our efforts to engage preservice middle grades Social Studies teachers in critical literacy practices as a first step toward more effectively and meaningfully integrating reading instruction into Social Studies education.
Teacher education programs around the nation continue to be challenged to prepare prospective teachers to use technology "meaningfully" in their instruction. This implies that university faculty in teacher education programs must become proficient at technology use and must come to understand content-specific, pedagogical uses of technology for their own instruction. In this article, the authors present a model for technological change driven by the notion of situated practice and communities of discourse in their school of education. They also describe a critical framework for facilitating discourse among teacher education faculty from which understandings of why, when, and how to use technology emerged. Several cases of situated practice are discussed with particular attention to how an understanding of meaningful technology use was negotiated through interactions between faculty and graduate students. Implicit in this model for technological change is a strategy for sustainability. This is elaborated as the authors discuss their results.
This study contributes to existing scholarship on democratic education by focusing explicitly on the affective dynamics of teaching with and for discussion. More specifically, the purpose of this research is to critically analyze the first author’s efforts to address the role of emotion in democratic dialogue within the context of classroom-based discussions and the work of preparing future social studies educators for their role as discussion facilitators. We found that despite the instructor’s stated goals and her efforts to teach about the constructive role of emotion in learning to communicate across difference, overall, students continued to judge dispassionate and disembodied speech acts as appropriate, while expressions of anger, frustration, or exaspe-ration were judged inappropriate. More specifically, if a female student spoke with anger or frustration during class discussions, her concerns, ideas, and questions tended to be ridiculed, ignored, or dismissed, while the same emotional rule did not apply to male students. If our intent is to facilitate communication across difference, we must actively attend to the ways in which social hierarchies inform discussion by carefully considering how emotional expression and experiences are positioned.
PurposeThe purpose of this self-study is to investigate how critically examining our emotions as social studies teacher educators (SSTEs) can inform practice and further the project of moving race from the margins of social studies curricula.Design/methodology/approachThis self-study's design includes the use of multiple data collection methods and continuous dialogue with Chris who served as Macy's critical friend. The authors independently analyzed the data following the same procedure with each data set and then utilized a constant comparative method to reconcile our coding.FindingsThe findings point to the importance of critical emotional reflexivity in any effort to reposition race as central rather than peripheral to teaching and learning social studies content.Originality/valueThis study is not under review with another journal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.