Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: empowerment

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Artykuł dostępny w postaci pełnego tekstu - kliknij by otworzyć plik

Schüler/innen- und Lebensweltorientierung einschließlich ökonomischer Kompetenzentwicklung im Unterrichtsgegenstand „Geographie und Wirtschaftskunde” an österreichischen Schulen

100%

Fridrich C.

Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Geographica

2014

tom 6

33-52

The main focus of the curriculum of the subject area “Geography and Economic Education” in Austria is the action of humans in natural space, economy and society. This includes various aspects and consequences of these human actions in our world. Moreover, humans are also in the focus of didactics and teaching in the classroom. That means an orientation towards pupils and their ideas, previous knowledge, everyday life, interim competences etc. Since the great change of the Austrian curriculum in 1962, Economic Education became an equal part of the subject area “Geography.” During the first years many teachers fought against this change, namely the integration of Economic Education with Geography, instead of identifying the chances and opportunities. A good instruction from the didactic point of view is the combination of geographic and economic contents and aims. Even now, more than 50 years later, many teachers and also their pupils like Geography much more than Economic Education. What is Economic Education? The main aim of Economic Education is to empower kids and youths in their lives within the society penetrated by economy. The detailed areas and aims are discussed within this study. As a first approach to this complex topic a number of aspects is discussed in this article. The curriculum of “Geography and Economic Education” shows that most of the topics concern both areas (Geography and Economic Education). Those include globalization, implications of tourism on space and economy, the European Union and its consequences for countries, people(s) and economy etc. Previous studies show that the level of economic knowledge of pupils is low or very low. Also adults as teachers, politicians and in some aspects even economists show low economic knowledge. The question is if in order to improve their life situation economic competences of pupils are more important than just knowledge. What seems to be more alarming is the low interest of pupils in Economic Education, which is proved by studies. One main aim of thepresent empiric study of the author was to find out the reasons for the low interest of pupils in Economic Education. Therefore a cluster of research questions are developed: (1) How do teachers assess the importance of the main topics of the curriculum at the lower secondary level? (2) What are the types of teachers when we consider their opinion of economy in general and of Economic Education? (3) What are the detailed aspects which reduce the interest of pupils in Economic Education? (4) For which target groups and purposes can a didactic model of Economic Education help to improve this situation? The empiric study was conducted at all schools at the lower secondary level (grade 4–8) in Vienna with ample time for them to take part in this survey. The return rate of the questionnaires was 65,7%, the total number of participating teachers of Geography and Economic Education was N=527. Because of the mostly closed questions of the questionnaire quantitative methods were applied for this part of the study, such as: variance analysis, Wilcoxon-test, contingence analysis, cluster analysis, factor analysis, and correlation analysis. According to the research questions there were three main findings. The assessment of the importance of economically dominated curriculum topics by teachers was significantly bad and the author’s previous observations and experiences were proved. Four types of teachers concerning their interest in economy in general and Economic Education could be identified. The group with the worst attitudes state that also their pupils have a bad attitude towards Economic Education. One reason is the transfer of bad attitudes from teachers to their pupils. Another reason could be the statement of teachers who ascribe a low interest to their pupils in order to reduce their instruction of Economic Education. The discussion and interpretation shows that Economic Education must be more oriented towards the everyday life of pupils to meet their interest. Their ideas, experiences and concepts must be in the centre of the instruction. This means that their lives that are filled with economy-based issues must be the starting point of instruction at the lower secondary level – in other words: the approaches must be drawn from life. The main aim of Economic Education must be to enable young people to take mature actions in our society. Mature in this context means self-determined, responsible and competent. Entrepreneurship education is only a small part of Economic Education, therefore should not be confused with Economic Education. Finally, the discussion of results leads to a didactic model of “everyday-oriented Economic Education” in which kids and young adults are situated in the centre. As they are surrounded by economy every step of the way, they need a competent Economic Education which prepares them for mature actions in four big economic areas of our society: private households, consumption, working world and society. Three main competence levels are regarded as essential in this context: a) remembering and understanding, b) applying and analysing, c) evaluating and creating. Economic Education does not guarantee mature actions, it only enables them. For all that a human can also act inadequately (irrationally, as if unadopted to a special situation, irresponsibly etc.). Furthermore, actions are influenced by internal aspects, such as motives, codes, and values, as well as external factors, such as actions of other humans, constraints and restrictions. Having acquired those competences young people can play a vital role in shaping their “environments of life,” which are also affected by unintended consequences of actions. Nevertheless, these shaped “environments of life” are again the starting point for the process of instruction (see graphic chart on the next page). This didactic model of Economic Education can help to improve the initial as well as the in-service teacher training by showing clearly the process, aims, areas, and influences of Economic Education. It may help to sensibilise future teachers and teachers in schools for adequate approaches to Economic Education which is part of a modern instruction of “Geography and Economic Education” and part of a profound general education of every human in our complex society.

The main focus of the curriculum of the subject area “Geography and Economic Education” in Austria is the action of humans in natural space, economy and society. This includes various aspects and consequences of these human actions in our world. Moreover, humans are also in the focus of didactics and teaching in the classroom. That means an orientation towards pupils and their ideas, previous knowledge, everyday life, interim competences etc. Since the great change of the Austrian curriculum in 1962, Economic Education became an equal part of the subject area “Geography.” During the first years many teachers fought against this change, namely the integration of Economic Education with Geography, instead of identifying the chances and opportunities. A good instruction from the didactic point of view is the combination of geographic and economic contents and aims. Even now, more than 50 years later, many teachers and also their pupils like Geography much more than Economic Education. What is Economic Education? The main aim of Economic Education is to empower kids and youths in their lives within the society penetrated by economy. The detailed areas and aims are discussed within this study. As a first approach to this complex topic a number of aspects is discussed in this article. The curriculum of “Geography and Economic Education” shows that most of the topics concern both areas (Geography and Economic Education). Those include globalization, implications of tourism on space and economy, the European Union and its consequences for countries, people(s) and economy etc. Previous studies show that the level of economic knowledge of pupils is low or very low. Also adults as teachers, politicians and in some aspects even economists show low economic knowledge. The question is if in order to improve their life situation economic competences of pupils are more important than just knowledge. What seems to be more alarming is the low interest of pupils in Economic Education, which is proved by studies. One main aim of the present empiric study of the author was to find out the reasons for the low interest of pupils in Economic Education. Therefore a cluster of research questions are developed: (1) How do teachers assess the importance of the main topics of the curriculum at the lower secondary level? (2) What are the types of teachers when we consider their opinion of economy in general and of Economic Education? (3) What are the detailed aspects which reduce the interest of pupils in Economic Education? (4) For which target groups and purposes can a didactic model of Economic Education help to improve this situation? The empiric study was conducted at all schools at the lower secondary level (grade 4–8) in Vienna with ample time for them to take part in this survey. The return rate of the questionnaires was 65,7%, the total number of participating teachers of Geography and Economic Education was N=527. Because of the mostly closed questions of the questionnaire quantitative methods were applied for this part of the study, such as: variance analysis, Wilcoxon-test, contingence analysis, cluster analysis, factor analysis, and correlation analysis. According to the research questions there were three main findings. The assessment of the importance of economically dominated curriculum topics by teachers was significantly bad and the author’s previous observations and experiences were proved. Four types of teachers concerning their interest in economy in general and Economic Education could be identified. The group with the worst attitudes state that also their pupils have a bad attitude towards Economic Education. One reason is the transfer of bad attitudes from teachers to their pupils. Another reason could be the statement of teachers who ascribe a low interest to their pupils in order to reduce their instruction of Economic Education. The discussion and interpretation shows that Economic Education must be more oriented towards the everyday life of pupils to meet their interest. Their ideas, experiences and concepts must be in the centre of the instruction. This means that their lives that are filled with economy-based issues must be the starting point of instruction at the lower secondary level – in other words: the approaches must be drawn from life. The main aim of Economic Education must be to enable young people to take mature actions in our society. Mature in this context means self-determined, responsible and competent. Entrepreneurship education is only a small part of Economic Education, therefore should not be confused with Economic Education. Finally, the discussion of results leads to a didactic model of “everyday-oriented Economic Education” in which kids and young adults are situated in the centre. As they are surrounded by economy every step of the way, they need a competent Economic Education which prepares them for mature actions in four big economic areas of our society: private households, consumption, working world and society. Three main competence levels are regarded as essential in this context: a) remembering and understanding, b) applying and analysing, c) evaluating and creating. Economic Education does not guarantee mature actions, it only enables them. For all that a human can also act inadequately (irrationally, as if unadopted to a special situation, irresponsibly etc.). Furthermore, actions are influenced by internal aspects, such as motives, codes, and values, as well as external factors, such as actions of other humans, constraints and restrictions. Having acquired those competences young people can play a vital role in shaping their “environments of life,” which are also affected by unintended consequences of actions. Nevertheless, these shaped “environments of life” are again the starting point for the process of instruction (see graphic chart on the next page). This didactic model of Economic Education can help to improve the initial as well as the in-service teacher training by showing clearly the process, aims, areas, and influences of Economic Education. It may help to sensibilise future teachers and teachers in schools for adequate approaches to Economic Education which is part of a modern instruction of “Geography and Economic Education” and part of a profound general education of every human in our complex society.

Ograniczanie wyników

1 Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Geographica

1 Fridrich C.

1 2014

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Schüler/innen- und Lebensweltorientierung einschließlich ökonomischer Kompetenzentwicklung im Unterrichtsgegenstand „Geographie und Wirtschaftskunde” an österreichischen Schulen