What is future ability and how? Student teachers’ intended and implemented social science curriculum
Abstract
Future ability is a missing competence in the social studies curriculum in Taiwan. The aim of this study was to explore the possibility of infusing future ability into social studies education in terms of intended and implemented curricula created by undergraduate student teachers. The research participants were 27 student teachers enrolling on a social studies method course. In the course, the student teachers had to complete two major tasks: (1) to construct their intended curricula and (2) to complete their implemented curricula of infusing future ability into social studies education. The role of the course teacher was scaffolding students to complete these tasks using a constructivist approach. The constructivism-based scaffolding system includes lectures, provision of a variety of internet resources such as digital databases, interaction through an internet-based course website, observation of experienced teachers’ teaching, and field teaching. The results indicated that the student teachers constructed four lines of intended curricula: time, space, knowledge, and humanity. The implemented curricula were successfully constructed and fit the intended curricula. Suggestions for infusing future ability into social studies education, global education, and teacher education are posited based on the features of the intended and implemented curricula constructed.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Addis, D. R., Wong, A. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: Common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1363-1377.
Atance, C. M., & O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 533-539.
Atance, C. M., & O'Neill, D. K. (2005). The emergence of episodic future thinking in humans. Learning and Motivation, 36, 126-144.
Bridges, D. (2000). Back to the future: The higher education curriculum in the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 37-55.
Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2006). Self-projection and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 49-57.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gardner, H. E. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2010). Meeting report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on detection and attribution related to anthropogenic climate change [Stocker, T.F., C.B. Field, D. Qin, V. Barros, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, P.M. Midgley, and K.L. Ebi (eds.)]. IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, pp. 55.
Kress, G. (2000). A curriculum for the future. Cambridge journal of education, 30(1), 133-145.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of Education in Taiwan (2010). The national curriculum of elementary and junior high school. Retrieved 19 May 2010 from http://www.edu.tw/eje/content.aspx?site_content_sn=15326.
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2008). Mitigating greenhouse: Limited time, limited options. Energy Policy, 36, 1251-1256.
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The ghosts of past and future. Nature, 445, 27.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 158-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/ahe.v0i0.1289
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
